HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-16 City Council (32)TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 4
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
September 16, 1996 CMR:393:96
101 Alma Street: Application to modify and establish a Planned
Community (PC) District for the property in order to permit a
Rooftop Multi-User Wireless Communication Facility use;
Variance to exceed maximum height limit. File Nos.: 96-ZC-8,96-
V-18 and 96-EIA-13.
REQUEST
The subject application is a request to modify and establish a Planned Community (PC)
District for the property in order to permit a Rooftop Multi-User Wireless Communication
Facility use. The proposal includes a request for a variance to exceed the maximum height
limit for proposed antennas that will extend above the existing building an additional 15 feet.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and staff recommend that the City
Council take the following actions:
Adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment #1), including findings, and special
conditions, to modify an existing Planned Community (PC) District that would
expand the permitted uses to allow the installation of a wireless antenna facility on the
rooftop of the Palo Alto Condominium building.
Approve the proposed variance (96-V-18) based on the findings presented in.
Attachment #2.
Adopt the ARB-recommended findings presented in Attachment #3.
CMR:393:96 Page 1 of 6
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Comprehensive Plan Compliance
As outlined in the attached Planning Commission staff report of August 28, 1996
(Attachment #5, page 7), the proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs
of the Palo Alto ComprehensivePlan. A summary of policy issues reviewed by the Planning
Commission and Architectural Review Board is provided as follows:
Urban Design Element
One of the main objectives of the Urban Design Element is to promote improvements that
are of high aesthetic quality and variety, as well as being considerate of one another.
Aesthetic impacts are of primary concern when reviewing a proposal for the installation of
antennas, such as those proposed. The site location, the height of the existing condominium
tower, and the proposed method of installation will serve to minimize the visual and aesthetic
impacts associated with the proposed antenna facility. As stated above, the placement of
antennas around the existing mechanical house structure provides a coordinated location,
minimizes views from the ground, and minimizes antenna heights to facilitate signal
coverage.
Land Use Element
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site as "Multiple-Family Residential".
The proposed project is a secondary use that will not change or interfere with the primary use
or density of the existing residential condominium tower located on the site.
Standards for Architectural Review
The design of the project has been reviewed by staff and the ARB for compliance with the
Standards of Architectural Review (PAMC Sections 16.48.010 and 120). Proposed findings
regarding the project’s compliance with these standards are presented in Attachment #3.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Descriptibn and Proposed Public Benefit
In summary, this zone change request would modify the existing Planned Community Zone
1802, by expanding the permitted uses to allow the installation of a wireless antenna facility
on the rooftop of the Palo Alto Condominium building located at 101 Alma Street. The
following types of antennas would be permitted under the proposed PC Zone Change:
Whip Type Antennas (32) - A total of 32 whip type antennas are proposed to be
mounted on the roof of the existing mechanical house structure that is on top of the
building. The whip antennas would extend a maximum of 13.5 feet above a 5-foot
parapet wall, up to a maximum height of 155’-6", and would be mounted in pairs via
a "Kruse" support structure that would be screened by the parapet wall.
CMR:393:96 Page 2 of 6
Panel Antennas (12) - A total of 12 panel antennas are proposed. The dimensions of
the panels may vary, but are to be a maximum of two-feet wide and a maximum of
six feet in height (2’W x 6’H max.). The panel antennas are to be mounted flush with
the top of the mechanical house parapet wall.
Microwave Dish Antennas (4) - A total of 4 microwave dish anteflnas are proposed
to be mounted on the wall of the existing mechanical house structure. The dish
antennas are proposed to be a maximum of 4 feet in diameter. The highest point of the
antenna is to be flush with the top of the mechanical house parapet wall.
The panel and dish antennas and all mounting structures are proposed to be painted a color
that is compatible with the existing rooftop mechanical house structure. The whip antennas
are to be painted a light grayish blue or other color that will blend in with the background of
the sky (per the ARB recommendation).
The application includes a variance request to permit an increase in the maximum allowable
height to accommodate the rooftop antennas. The height of the existing residential tower is
127’-6", with the existing mechanical house structure and parapet walls on top of the roof
extending an additional 13 feet, up to a maximum height of 140’-6" above grade. (NOTE:
The building was approved in 1958, prior to the adoption of the special height restrictions
contained in the current Planned Community zoning ordinance.) The applicant proposes to
raise the existing parapet wall by 1.5 feet and have the proposed whip antennas extending
13.5 feet above the top of the extended parapet wall, up to an elevation of 155’-6". The
special provisions section of the zoning ordinance [Section 18.88.100] allows rooftop
equipment and antennas to extend an additional 15 feet beyond the height limit. However,
since the height already exceeds the height restrictions contained in the current zoning
ordinance, and because the proposed whip antennas will extend an additional 15 feet above
the existing parapet wall, a variance is required. The required findings for the variance are
presented in Attachment #2.
The public benefits proposed by the project are to group the different types of antennas to
minimize the visual impacts and offer to make available to the City of Palo Alto one antenna
and one piece of equipment at no cost (except for utilities) for the public benefit and safety.
A detailed description of the proposed project, variance request and public benefit is
provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report of August 28, 1996 (Attachment
#5, pages 1-4). Pages 5 and 6 of the August 28, 1996 staff report summarize the
Architectural Review Board’s approval of the project. The July 5, 1996 ARB minutes are
attached to the August 28 Planning Commission staff report.
CMR:393:96 Page 3 of 6
Summary. of Planning Commission Review
On August 28, 1996, the Planning Commission voted (7 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent) to
recommend approval of the PC District Zone Change and the height variance. The draft
minutes of the August 28 Planning Commission meeting are included the City Council
packet.
The President of the Board of Directors for the Homeowners Association and the attorney
for the Association spoke in favor of the application and stated that the issue had been
discussed by the Board and that the proposal would have long-range benefits for the residents
of the building. Several homeowners in the building spoke against the application, stating
that locating the antennas on the roof would pose ongoing security problems for the residents
of the building and inconvenience by using the only elevators for regular equipment service.
They were also concerned about the safety of the roof and the construction impacts.
The Planning Commission discussed the temporary nature of the construction impacts and
verified with the applicant that the roof could structurally withstand the addition of the
antennas. The Director of Operations for Diablo Communications responded to the security
concern by stating that maintenance of the antennas would be on a periodic basis and that he
would attempt to disturb the residents of the building as little as possible.
The Commission recommended the following minor changes to the draft Planned
Community Ordinance:
Paragraph (vii) on page 5 of the draft Ordinance should be changed to read: "Upon such time
that the whip antennas become technologically obsolete and their use is discontinued, the
entire ’Kruse~ support structure and all antennas shall be removed."
Paragraph (viii) on page 5 should be amended in the following manner: Delete the first
sentence and modify the second sentence to read: "All of the whip antennas or simulated
antennas shall be installed at the same time so that a consistel~t pattern is established and
maintained."
A copy of the modified Ordinance is attached to this report (see Attachment 1).
In addition to the correspondence attached to the August 28, 1996, Planning Commission
staff report, a letter was submitted just prior to the Planning Cofnmission meeting by Jane
Strubbe, owner of Palo Alto Condominium #604. This letter is included as Attachment #6
to this report.
CMR:393:96 Page 4 of 6
ALTERNATIVES
The property is currently an approved PC District that permits the existing multiple-story
residential tower use, including ancillary facilities (rooftop equipment, pool, parking area,
landscaped grounds). Alternatives that can be considered include the following:
1.Permit a higher or lower number of antennas to be installed.
2.Recommend modifications to the type, location and/or placement of the antennas.
3.Deny placement of any antennas on the roof by denying the application.
4.Deny the variance for the height increase that is necessary for the placement of the
proposed whip antennas and the 1.5-foot extension of the existing parapet wall.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project involves the installation of a wireless communications facility on the rooftop of
an existing residential building. The project would not have a significant fiscal impact upon
the City. This application is subject to the full cost recovery fee schedule.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The City Council decision in this matter is final unless challenged by private parties in a
court of law. Prior to the installation of the antennas, the individual service providers will
be responsible for obtaining all necessary licenses from state and federal agencies that
regulate communications facilities (i.e., State Public Utilities Commission, Federal
Communications Commission, etc.).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
#1:PC Ordinance with Findings and Conditions
#2:Findings for Variance Request
#3:Findings for Architectural Review Approval.
#4:Location Map ’
#5:Planning Commission Staff Report, August 28, 1996 (with attachments)
#6:Letter from Jane Strubbe, received August 28, 1996
#7:Project Description and Public Benefit Statement submitted by the project
sponsor (Council Members only)
#8: Plans (Council Members only)
CMR:393:96 Page 5 of 6
PREPARED BY: Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CC: Diablo Communications, Inc., c/o Matthews Land Company, Attn: John Ford,
5619 Scotts Valley Drive, Suite 200, Scotts Valley CA 95066
Palo Alto Condominium Owners’ Association, 101 Alma Street, Palo Alto CA 94301
Beth Sheofski, 1220 Brickyard Cove Road, Suite 200, Point Richmond CA 94801
Fred Eyerly, 101 Alma, #1107, Palo Alto CA 94301
CMR:393:96 Page 6 of 6
? WTACHMENT #1
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAL0 ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS i01 ALMA
STREET FROM PC (ORD. NO. 1802) TOPC
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION I.
(a) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public
hearing held August 28, 1996, and the Architectural Review Board,
upon consideration at its meeting of July 5, 1996, have recommended
that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code be amended as hereinafter set forth.
(b) The City Council, after due consideration of the
recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as
hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
certain property known as i01 Alma Street (the "subject property")
from "PC Planned Community (Ordo No. 1802)" to "PC Planned
Community." The subject property is shown on the map labeled
Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
(a) The site is so situated, and the uses proposed for
the subject property are’ of such characteristics that the
application of general districts or combining districts will not
provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development.
Specifically, the site was rezoned from R-4 to PC in 1958
(Ordinance No. 1802) in order to accommodate a multi-story
structure with a maximum height of over 140 ~feet. The proposed
rooftop multi-user wireless communication facility use
("Communication Facility") was not contemplated at that time, and
therefore is not presently a principally permitted use. There is
no general district or combining district which would accommodate
the existing condominium tower, with or without the Communication
Facility, due to the height and use of the structure.
960829 lac 0080349
1
(b) The project will result in public benefits not
otherwise attainable by application of general districts or
combining districts, as follows:
(i)The improved communications capabilities
made possible by the Communication Facility will be advantageous to
local businesses, residents, and public agencies.
(ii)There is a public benefit to providing a
multi-user, master planned facility that groups different types of
antennas at a coordinated location, thereby reducing the visual
impact on the surrounding community. The multi-user facility
provides for the grouping of antennas at a coordinated location,
potentially reducing the number of individual antenna sites
throughout the City. As a result of the master planning process,
the Communication Facility has been designed to minimize visual
impacts to the surrounding area by integrating the antennas into
the existing rooftop structure, which is set back from the building
face. Placement of the Communication Facility at this location
through use of a PC zone allows a design which takes advantage of
the existing building’s location and height to facilitate signal
coverage, while minimizing views of the Facility from the ground.
(iii)The applicant has offered to and will make
available ~o the City one antenna mount and the space for
transmitting equipment at the project site. This will benefit the
public by improving the City’s communications capabilities,
especially during an emergency.
(c) The uses permitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and existing and potential uses on
the project site, adjoining sites, and within the general vicinity,
in that one of the main objectives of the Urban Design Element is
to promote improvements that are of high aesthetic quality and
variety, as well as being ~onsiderate of one a~other. Aesthetic
impacts are of primary concern when reviewing a proposal for the
installation of antennas such as this Communication Facility. The
site location, the height of the existing condominium tower, the
proposed method of installation, and implementation of the project
in accordance with the site development regulations and
requirements of this ordinance will ensure that the project will be
consistent with the Urban Design Element.
SECTION 4o Those certain plans prepared by R. Bo Welty,
Civil Engineer, approved October i0, 1958 (for the condominium
project), as modified by those entitled "Palo Alto Condo Rooftop
Antenna Design" prepared by Roberts Engineers and Architects for
Diablo Communication, Inc., dated June 27, 1996, and approved by
the Architectural Review Board on July 5,.1996, copies on file in
960829 ia~ 0080349
2
the Planning Division office and to which copies reference is
hereby made, are hereby collectively approved as the Development
Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.68.120. Said Development Plan is approved for the
following uses, and subject to the following conditions:
(a) Permitted Uses. The permitted uses shall be limited
to those listed as permitted uses under the prior PC zone
(Ordinance No. 1802) and any amendments thereto, multi-family
residential (a maximum of ii0 units) and accessory uses incidental
thereto, and a Rooftop Multi-User Wireless Communication Facility
consisting of the following:
(i)Whip-type Antennas (32) - A maximum of 32
whip type antennas mounted on the roof of the existing mechanical
house structure on top of the building. The whip antennas shall be
uniform in height and shall extend a maximum of 13.5 feet above a
five-foot parapet wall, up to a maximum height of 155.5 feet above
grade. The whip antennas shall be a maximum of four (4) inches in
diameter and shall be mounted in pairs via a "Kruse" support
structure that shall be screened by the parapet wall.
(ii)Panel Antennas (12) - A maximum of twelve
~(12) panel antennas, mounted flush with the top of the mechanical
house parapet wall. The dimensions of the panels may vary, but may
not exceed a maximum of two feet wide and six feet in height.
(iii)Microwave Dish Antennas (4) - A maximum of
four (4) microwave dish antennas, mounted on the wall of the
existing mechanical house structure. The dish antennas shall not
exceed a maximum of four (4) feet in diameter. The highest point
of the antenna shall be flush with the top of the mechanical house
parapet wall.
(iv) Electrical or other.equipment necessary to
serve the antennas, which" shall be located~ in the ~ existing
mechanical room on the roof.
(b)
allowed.
Conditional Uses.There are no conditional uses
(c) Site Development Re_qulations. All improvements and
development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved
Development Plan. The following site development regulations
establish rules for modifications or additions to any building,
accessory structure or landscapfng on the subject property.
Definitions of terms used shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.04
(Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
960829 lac 0080349
3
(i) The maximum height, including antennas,
shall not exceed elevation 155o5 feet.
(ii)Once antennas have been installed
consistent with the approved Development Plan, antennas, mounting
structures and electrical equipment associated with the project may
be modified without the approval of the Architectural Review Board
only if quantity, size and type of~antennas remain consistent with
the approved Development Plan, and all electrical equipment is
located within the existing rooftop mechanical house structure.
(iii)Any other exterior changes to the
buildings or any new construction not specifically permitted by the
Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall
require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone.
(d) Parking and Loading Requirements. The parking and
loading requirements governing the subject property shall be in
accordance with the approved Development Plan for the previous PC
zone applicable to the Property (Ordinance No~ 1802), which
requires a minimum of 130 off-street parking spaces.
(e) Development Schedule. Construction of the project
shall commence on or before March i, 1997, may occur in phases
consistent with the requirements of this ordinance, and shall be
completed on or before March I, 2004.
(f) Special Requirements The following special
conditions and requirements shall apply to the Communications
Facility:
(i)All mounting structures shall be painted
to be compatible with the existing rooftop mechanical house
¯ structure. The panel and dish antennas shall be painted the same
color as the parapet wall and parapet extension. The whip antennas
shall be pain£ed a light grayish blue or oth%r color that will
blend in with the background of the sky.
(ii)The electrical equipment associated with
the project shall be located within the existing rooftop mechanical
house structure.
(iii)No equipment shall be installed or
operated in a manner which will cause or create interference
problems with licensed frequencies.
(iv)Prior to issuance of a building permit for
the installation of any antennas, a Site Manager for the
Communication Facility shall be designated and the name, address,
and telephone number of the Site Manager shall be provided in
960829 lac 0080349
4
writing to the City’s Police Department and to the Department of
Planning and Community Environment. Any changes to Site Manager
data (name, address, and/or telephone number) shall be promptly
provided in writing to those Departments. The designated Site
Manager shall be the primary contact person for coordination with
the individual service providers for any problems that arise
concerning interference with licensed frequencies. Resolution of
any frequency interference problem originating at the Communication
Facility shall be the responsibility of the Site Manager.
(v) Prior to the installation of any
transmitters, an Intermodulation Distortion Engineering Study shall
be conducted and a copy submitted for review and approval by the
Communications Division of the City’s Police Department. The City
shall determine whether the transmitters may interfere with City
communications, and if such a determination is made, the
transmitters shall not be installed unless adjustments are made as
necessary to avoid the interference. If the installation of
transmitters is phased, an Intermodulation Distortion Engineering
Study shall be performed and provided to the City for review and
approval in accordance with this paragraph prior to each phased
installation.
(vi) Prior to issuance of building permits for
installation of any antennas, engineering calculations and details
regarding method of support for the antennas shall be submitted to
the City’s Building Inspection Division.
(vii) Upon such time that the whip antennas
become technologically obsolete and their use is discontinued, the
entire "Kruse" support structure and all antennas shall be removed.
(viii) All of the whip antennas and/or simulation
antennas shall be installed at the same time so that a consistent
pattern is established and maintained.
(ix) Prior to issuance of a building permit for
installation of any panel or dish antenna, the precise location of
the antenna shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of
Planning and Community Environment to ensure the orderly, balanced
placement and installation of all antennas. ,It is the intent of
this condition to allow flexibility in the exact placementof the
antennas while ensuring that the number of antennas installed on
any one side Of the mechanical house structure is not unsightly.
(x) Prior to issuance of a building permit for
the parapet extension, the details of the construction, colors and
materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of
Planning and Community Environment.
960829 lac 0080349
5
(xi) In accordance with one element of the
public benefit proposed by the applicant, one antenna mount and the
space for transmitting equipment will be made available to the City
for its use as follows:
(aa) The City will be allowed access to
one antenna space, or alternatively, access to one combined antenna
scheme subject to proper RE engineering standards and installation
techniques.
(bb) Space will be reserved for use by the
City for its transmission equipment. The size of this equipment
will be equivalent to MSF 5000 Micor, or similar.
(cc) The City will be responsible for the
utility costs associated with its equipment, pro-rated in
accordance with its electrical current consumption.
SECTION 5. This project is categorically exempt from
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:~
PASSED :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSTENTIONS :
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Assto City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
960829 I~ 0080349
6
¯ I’TACHMENT #2
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE PC
DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMITATION
101 Alma Street
Rooftop Multi-User Wireless Communication Facility
File #s 96-ZC-8, 96-V-18 and 96-EIA-13
6
There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in
that due to the height of the existing condominium tower ~on the property, an
increase to the maximum height limit is necessary in order to mount any rooftop
equipment that would extend above the existing parapet wall. Specifically, the
height of the existing residential tower (top of parapet wall) is at elevation 140’-6"
The proposed whip antennas will extend above the existing building an additional 15
feet, to an elevation of 155 ’-6".
The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss
or unnecessary hardship, in that a variance for the increased height is necessary
because the proposed facility is required by the nature of its operation to be located
on top of the building so that it is higher than other surrounding structures.
Because the building is currently non-conforming, any type of roof top equipment
that would extend above the existing parapet wall would require a variance.
The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to subject
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the proposed antennas are
designed and located so that they are of minimal visual impact. The antennas that
will extend above the existing parapet wall will have minimal visual impact on the
residents on the site or nearby, due to the existing height of the residential tower.
P:\PCSR\ALMA101 .VAR
8-28-96
_/ TACHMENT #3
FINDINGS REGARDING
PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS
_FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
1_01 Alma Street
Rooftop Multi-User Wireless Communication Facility
File #s 96-ZC-, 96-V-18 and 96-ARB-61
The project has been reviewed for compliance with Section 16.48.010 and 120 of the
PAMC. The project complies with the ARB standards for review is as follows:
Section 16.48.010
The proposed project promotes the orderly and harmonious development of the city
(Goal A) in that the master planning of a multi-user rooftop wireless communication
facility on this site provides a comprehensive, coordinated review of the overall
facility, which results in a facility that has fewer visual impacts on the surrounding
community. The multi-user facility has the potential to reduce the number of
applications submitted by individual communications service providers for antenna
facilities at different locations and at different times.
The proposed project enhances the desirability of residence or investment in the City
(Goal B), in that the improved communications capabilities made possible by the
proposed facility will be advantageous to local businesses, residents and public
agencies. In addition, the applicant, has offered to make available to the City of
Palo Alto, one antenna and one piece of equipment at no cost (except for utilities).
This offering will benefit the public by improving the City’s communications
capabilities, especially during an emergency.
P:\PCSR\ARBSTDS.ATT
8-28-96
The proposed project encourages the attainment of the most desirable use of land
and improvements (Goal C), in that the project site and the existing multiple-story
residential tower is particularly well-suited for the proposed communication facility
due to its central location and building height, which allows the placement of
antennas on the rooftop without significantly changing the height or roof line of the
structure. Due to the height of the residential tower, the visibility of the antennas
from the surrounding area is substantially reduced. Sites such as this are limited in
the City of Palo Alto.
The proposed project enhances the desirability of living conditions upon the
immediate site or in adjacent areas (Goal D), in that the project will provide
improved communications capabilities (including improved emergency
communications) that will be available to the entire community, while resulting in
minimal visual impact.
The proposed project promotes visual environments which are of high aesthetic
quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of one another
(Goal E), in that the site location, the height of the existing condominium tower,
and the proposed method of installation, colors and materials will serve to minimize
the visual and aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed antenna facility. The
placement of antennas around the existing roof top mechanical house structure
provides a coordinated location, minimizes views from the ground, and minimizes
the height of the antennas.
Section 16.48.120
The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Standard #1) in that one of the main objectives of
the Urban Design Element is to promote improvements that are of high aesthetic
quality and variety, as well as being considerate of one another. Aesthetic impacts
are of primary concern when reviewing a proposal for the installation of antennas,
such as those proposed. The site location, the height of the existing condominium
tower, and the proposed method of installation, colors and materials will serve to
minimize the visual and aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed antenna
facility. The placement of antennas around the existing roof top mechanical house
structure provides a coordinated location, minimizes views from the ground, and
minimizes height of the antennas. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan land use
P:\PCSR\ARBSTDS.ATT
8-28-96
map designates the , as "Multiple-Family Residential" ¯ ’he proposed project will
not change or interfere with the primary use or density of the existing residential
condominium tower located on the site.
The project design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site
(Standards #2 and 3). Specifically, the proposed rooftop wireless communication
facility has been designed to minimize visual impacts to the surrounding area by
integrating the antennas into the existing rooftop structure which is setback from the
building face. Placement of antennas around the mechanical house structure
provides a coordinated location, minimizes views from the ground, and minimizes
antenna heights to facilitate signal coverage.
The design of the project would be compatible with the existing improvements both
on and off site (Standard #6). Specifically, the project site and the existing multi-
story residential tower is particularly well-suited for the proposed communication
facility due to its central location and building height, which allows the placement of
antennas on the rooftop without significantly changing the height or roof line of the
structure.
The materials, textures, colors and details of construction are appropriate for the
function and design of the project and would be compatible with the neighboring
uses. (Standard #12). Specifically, the proposed colors will help to minimize the
visibility of the proposed antennas. All of the antennas and mounting structures are
to be painted a color that is compatible with the existing rooftop mechanical house
structure. In addition, the panel and dish antennas will not extend above the
existing walls of the mechanical house structure. Furthermore, the electrical
equipment associated with the project is proposed to be located within the rooftop
mechanical house structure.
The project design is energy efficient (Standard #15). FCC regulations requires that
communications be optimized to provide effective communications using minimum
power for proper coverage of the operating area. This is typically done by selecting
an antenna design optimized to .meet those needs. Optimal energy use is achieved
by allowing the different types of antennas that are proposed for this facility.
P:\PCSR\ARBSTDS.ATT
8-28-96
NOTE:Standards 4,5,7,8,9,10,11,13 and 14 are not applicable to this project based
on the following:
Standard 4 is not applicable in that the existing condominium tower is not known to
have any historical significance.
Standard 5 is not applicable in that the proposal consists of installing an antenna faculty
on the rooftop of a 140-foot residemial tower. The antennas will not significantly alter
the scale or character of the existing building on which it is to be located.
Standards 7.8.9 and 10 are not applicable in that the proposal consists of an unmanned
rooftop antenna facility. No new buildings or activities are proposed (other than
weekly maintenance) that would interfere with the occupants of the building, visitors or
the general community. The proposal will not alter the amount or arrangement of
existing open space. Access to the site will not be affected by the proposal.
Standards 11. 13 and 14 are not applicable in that the site is already developed. Natural
features such as mature landscaping will not be affected.
P:\PCSR\ARBSTDS.ATT
8-28-96
119
ATTACHMENT #4
PF
EL CAMINO
101 Alma Street
Zone Change from Planned
Community (PC) to allow wireless
antennas.Sl
Scale: 1 inch =200 ft
O 200 ~400 ~
!’,, I , ,j__l ....
Date: 6-26-96
North
ATTACHMENT #5
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner
AGENDA DATE: August 28, 1996
DEPARTMENT:Planning
SUBJECT:101 Alma Street: Application to modify and establish a Planned
Community (PC) District for the property in order to permit a
Rooftop Multi-User Wireless Communication Facility use; Variance
to exceed maximum height limit. File Nos.: 96-ZC-8,96-V-18 and
96-EIA-13.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council:
o
Adoption of the attached ordinance (Attachment 1), including findings and special
conditiom, to modify an existing Planned Community (PC) District.that would expand
the permitted uses to allow the installation of a wireless antenna facility on the rooftop
of the Palo Alto Condominium building.
Approval of the proposed variance (96-V-18) based on the f’mdings presented in
Attachment #2.
3. Adoption of the ARB recommended f’mdings presented in Attachment #3.
BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION
In August 1958, a change in zoning for the property located at 101 Alma Street was
approved, which established Planned Community Zone 1802 for the development of a
multiple-story residential tower use (previously zoned R-4). The property is located in the
Downtown North neighborhood, an area of mixed r~sidential development. In June 1974,
PC Zone 1802 was amended to allow for exterior alterations (enclosure of decks and
patios, replacement of penthouse canvas awning with permanent deck cover).
The current zone change request would modify the PC Zone by expanding the permitted
uses to allow the installation of a wireless antenna facility on the rooftop of the Palo Alto
Condominium building. In addition, the application includes a request to increase the
maximum allowable height to 155’-6" in elevation, in order to accommodate the rooftop
antennas. Details of the proposal, as well as information on the subject property, are
presented below.
It should be noted that since the proposal was initially reviewed by the Planning
Commission on June 12, 1996, the applicant has proposed modifications to the application
(please see Attachment #7, letter from Matthews Land Corporation, dated June 26, 1996).
These modifications are reflected in the attached plans and are noted in the descriptions
below:
Whip Type Antennas .(32) - A total of 32 whip type antennas are proposed to be
mounted on the roof of the existing mechanical house structure that is on top of the
building. The whip antennas would extend a maximum of 13.5 feet above a 5-foot
parapet wall, up to a maximum height of 155’.-6", and would be mounted in pairs via
a "Kruse" support structure that would be screened by the parapet wall.
Modification since June 12 Planning Commission Meeting: The height of the parapet
wall is proposed to be extended 1.5 feet, from 3.5 feet to 5 feet. The material used for
the extension is to match the existing parapet, in terms of texture and color. In
addition, the applicant has clarified that all of the whip antennas will be uniform in
height.
Panel Antennas (i2) - A total of twelve (12) panel antennas are proposed. The
dimensions of the panels may vary, but are to be a maximum of two-feet wide and a
maximum of six feet in height (2’W x 6’H max.). The panel antennas are to be
mounted flush with the top of the mechanical house parapet wall.
Modification since June 12 Planning Commission Meeting: Thr number of panel
antennas would increase from eight to twelve. In addition, ~e maximum size of each
of the panels would increase from 1 ’W x 4’H to 2’W x 6’H, and all of the panels are
P:\PCSR\almal01.pe2
8-28-96
Page 2
proposed to be mounted on the parapet wall of the mechanical house structure. In the
original proposal, some of the panels were to be mounted to the edge of the existing
exhaust fan screen structures facing north and south.
Microwave Dish Antennas (4) - A total of four (4) microwave dish antennas are
proposed to be mounted on the wall of the existing mechanical house structure. The
dish antennas are proposed to be a maximum of four (4) feet in diameter. The highest
point of the antenna is to be flush with the top of the mechanical house parapet wall.
Modification since June 12 Planning Commission Meeting: No modifications to the
number or size of the dish antennas are proposed. However, the original proposal
specified that the dishes were to be mounted on either end of the east and west sides of
the mechanical house structure. Under the modified proposal, no location is specified.
The panel and dish antennas and all mounting structures are proposed to be painted a color
that is compatible with the existing rooftop mechanical house structure. The whip antennas
are to be painted a light grayish blue or other color that will blend in with the background
of the sky (per the ARB recommendation). The electrical equipment associated with the
project is proposed to be located within the rooftop mechanical house structure. Necessary
electrical and telecommunications connections will be made through the existing utility
services that currently serve the residential tower. The wireless communication facility
is an unmanned facility and does not require water or sanitary sewer facilities. However,
employees from each provider will visit the facility weekly to perform preventative
maintenance. A total of 3-5 service visits per week is anticipated. In the event of an
emergency, service crews are dispatched immediately.
Rezoning to PC (Planned Community District) and Statement of Public Benefit
The project sponsors are required to present a statement identifying the proposed uses, the
phasing schedule and the public benefits of the project. The project sponsor lists all uses
permitted by the approved PC 1802 and all prior amendments, and the proposed rooftop
wireless communication facility as the proposed uses (see Attachment #10). With regard
to phasing, due to the multi-user nature of the facility, a specific phasing program is not
proposed. However, the applicant has indicated that the project will be developed over a
seven-year period.
As required, a public benefits statement has been prepared by’the project sponsor and is
included in their submittal packet attached to this staff report (Attachment #10). The
following is a summary of the public benefits cited by the project sponsor:
P:\PCSR\almal01 .pc2
8-28-96
Page 3
The improved communications capabilities will be advantageous to local businesses,
residents and public agencies.
The master planning of a multi-user rooftop wireless communication facility at this site
provides for comprehensive, coordinated review of the overall facility. The multi-user
facility reduces the number of applications submitted by individual communications
service providers for antenna facilities at different locations and at different times.
The facility benefits the community by grouping of antennas at a coordinated location,
rather than the development of numerous individual sites throughout the City.
The proposed rooftop wireless communication facility has been designed to minimize
visual impacts to the surrounding area by integrating the antennas into the existing
rooftop structure which is setback from the edge of the building. Placement of
antennas around the mechanical house structure provides a coordinated location,
minimizes views from the ground, and minimizes antenna heights to facilitate signal
coverage.
The project sponsor has offered to make available to tb.e City of Palo Alto, one antenna
and one piece of equipment at no cost (except for utilities) for the public benefit and
safety (please see Attachment #8, letter of from John Ford, Matthews Land Company,
dated August 19, 1996).
Request for Variance to Height and Daylight Plane
The height of the existing residential tower is 127’-6" with the existing mechanical house
structure and parapet walls on top of the roof extending an additional 13 feet, up to a
maximum height of 140’-6" above grade. (NOTE: The building was approved in 1958,
prior to the adoption of the special height restrictions contained in the current zoning
ordinance.) The proPOsed whip antennas will extend 13.5 feet above the top of the
existing parapet wall up to an elevation of 155’-6". The special requirements of the PC
Zone [Section 18.68.150 (b) and (e)] establish the height limits for structures within 150
feet of RM-zoned property. For this property, the height limit is 50 feet. The special
provisions section of the zoning ordinance [Section 18.88.100] allows rooftop equipment
and antennas to extend an additional 15 feet beyond the height limit. However, since the
height already exceeds the height restrictions contained in the current zoning ordinance,
and because the proposed whip antennas will extend an additional 15 feet above the
existing parapet wall, a Variance is required. The required findings for the Variance are
presented in Attachment #2.
P:\PCSR\almal01.pc2
8-28-96
Page 4
SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF PROJECT
On June 12, 1996, the Planning Commission completed an initial review of the project.
The Planning Commission commented on the proposed antenna facility, the suitability of
the site for the proposed use, alternative locations for the proposed use, and the proposed
public benefit statement. At the meeting, two members of the public commented on the
proposal and expressed concern regarding visual/aesthetic impacts and potential health
impacts (please refer to the attached June 12 Planni~.g .Commission mee.ting minutes). The
Planning Commission unanimously voted to forward the project to the ARB with the
following comments and recommendations:
1.The ARB should consider the visual/aesthetic impacts of the proposed whip antennas,
if they are not uniform in height.
2. The ARB should consider the proposed color of the antennas and mounting structures.
3.The ARB should consider the aesthetic impacts on the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
o In response to concerns expressed by the public regarding potential health impacts, the
Commission Commented that they defer to the regulations and restrictions imposed by
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
5.The Planning Commission recommended a condition that requires removal of antennas
when they are no longer functional.
6.A suggestion was made by one of the Commissioners to create interest to the proposal
by establishing some rhythm and pattern with the placement of the antennas.
7.A concern was expressed by one of the Commissioners regarding the public benefit
statement submitted by the applicant and outlined in the staff report. Commissioner
Beecham felt that only one of the four original public benefits listed, ("The improved
communications capabilities will be advantageous to local, businesses, residents and
public agencies") is a valid public benefit.
On July 5, 1996, the ARB reviewed the project (inclusive of the revisions proposed by the
applicant) and found that the project complies with the applicable standards for review, as
outlined in Attachment #3. On a 3-0-2 vote, the ARB recommended approval of the
project with additional conditions (please see attached July 5, 1996 ARB meeting minutes).
P:\PCSR\almalOl .pc2
8-28-96
Page 5
The following is a summary of the ARB comments and recommendations:
The ARB was concerned about the uniformity of height regarding the whip antennas.
It was recommended that sleeves be installed for all 32 whip antennas to ensure that
they are of uniform height, and that all of the sleeves and/or whip antennas be installed
at the same time so that a consistent pattern is established from the beginning.
The ARB expressed concern regarding the uniformity of color of all antennas and the
surface (background) on which they are mounted. The ARB recommended that the
panel and dish antennas be the same color as the parapet wall, and that the whip
antennas be painted a light grayish blue or other color that will blend in most with the
background of the sky.
The ARB understood the applicant’s need to have flexibility in the exact placement of
the panel and dish antennas. To ensure the orderly, balanced placement and installation
of panel and dish antennas, the ARB recommended a condition requiring that Planning
Division staff review the placement of the panel and dish antennas prior to installation.
The ARB wanted to ensure that the extension of the parapet wall would be done
properly with regard to compatibility with the color and construction of the existing
parapet wall. The applicant has indicated that the parapet extension will be constructed
and painted to match the existing parapet, or the entire parapet structure will be
repainted to ensure that everything will match. The ARB recommended that the details
of the parapet extension be submitted to Planning staff for review.
The ARB expressed appreciation for the applicants’ coordinated master plan approach
that addresses different types of antennas all as one application. The consensus of the
ARB was that with the conditions imposed regarding installation and color of the
antennas, the antennas will be virtually invisibl~ from most vantage points.
The ARB recommendations have been incorporated into the conditions of the PC
ordinance.
P:\PCSR\almaI01.pc2
8-28-96
Page 6
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Urban Design Element
One of the main objectives of the Urban Design Element is to promote improvements that
are of high aesthetic quality and variety, as well as being considerate of one another.
Aesthetic impacts are of primary concern when reviewing a proposal for the installation
of antennas, such as those proposed. The site location, the height of the existing
condominium tower, and the proposed method of installation will serve to minimize the
visual and aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed antenna facility. As stated
above, the placement of antennas around the existing mechanical house structure provides
a coordinated location, minimizes views from the ground, and minimizes antenna heights
to facilitate signal coverage.
Land Use Element
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site as "Multiple-Family
Residential". The proposed project is a secondary use which will not change or interfere
with the primary use or density of the existing residential condominium tower located on
the site.
Standards for Architectural Review
The design of the project has been reviewed by staff and the ARB for compliance with the
Standards of Architectural Review (PAMC Sections 16.48.010 and 120). Proposed
findings regarding the project’s compliance with these standards are presented in
Attachment #3.
Assessment of PC District and Public Benefit Statement
A PC (Planned Community) District modification is justified and appropriate in this case,
in that it would permit the development of a rooftop wireless communications facility in
a location that is well suited for the proposed use. The following are staff’s comments on
the public benefits presented by the project sponsor and outlined earlier in the staff report:
The improved communications capabilities made possible by the proposed facility will
be advantageous to local businesses, residents and public agencies.
P:\PCSR\almal01 .pc2
8-28-96
Page 7
The master planning of this communication facility allows a comprehensive,
coordinated review and approval, resulting in a minimization of visual impacts on the
surrounding community. The communication facility has the potential to reduce the
number of applications submitted by individual communications service providers for
antenna facilities at different locations and at different times. Staff views this as a
public benefit.
The master planning process will result in the design of a communication facility that
will minimize visual impacts to the surrounding area by integrating the antennas into
the existing rooftop structure which is setback from the building face. Staff believes
that although this "setback feature" is inherent in the existing site/building conditions,
and project design, it will benefit the public because it will minimize the visibility of
the antennas from the ground.
The placement of the proposed communication facility at this location through the use
of a PC zone allows a design which takes advantage of the existing building’s location
and height to facilitate signal coverage, while minimizing views of the facility from the
ground.
Staff believes that the project sponsor’s offer to make available to the City of Palo Alto,
access to one antenna space and one piece of equipment at no cost (except for utilities)
will benefit the public by improving the City’s communications capabilities, especially
during an emergency.
Staff has modified the f’mdings regarding the public benefit in order to make the "benefit"
more clear. The modified findings are included in the attached PC Ordinance.
Draft Findings and Conditions
Since the Planning Commission’s initial review of this project, the findings and conditions
have been modified to reflect changes proposed by the applicant, recommendations of the
ARB and Planning Commission, and further ref’mements based on comments received from
the Police Department Communications Division. The modified f’mdings and conditions
have been incorporated into the attached PC ordinance.
Public Participation
Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property were mailed a public
hearing notice. In addition, the proposal was reviewed by the Palo Alto Condominium
Owners’ Association (PACOA) prior to submittal of the application. At the June 12, 1996,
P:\PCSR\almal01 .pc2
8-28-96
Page 8
Planning Commission hearing, two members of the public commented on the proposal and
expressed concern regarding visual/aesthetic impacts and potential health impacts (please
refer to the attached minutes of the Planning Commission hearing). At the July 5, 1996,
ARB meeting, the president of the PACOA, representing the Board of Directors, indicated
that the Board unanimously supported the proposal. In addition, two residents of the
condominium building commented on the proposal and expressed concern regarding the
appearance of the proposed antennas, the manner in which the parapet was to be extended,
and the proposed increase in the number as well as size of panel antennas (please refer to
the attached ARB meeting minutes).
The Planning Commission should also be aware that some members of the PACOA have
questioned whether the PACOA Board of Directors had the authority t~ enter into a lease
agreement with Diablo Communications, and whether PACOA’s general manager, Michael
O’Quinn, had the authority to submit the application to the City for the PC zone change.
The PACOA Board of Directors has submitted a letter from their attorney which indicates
that the Board acted within their power and authority (please see Attachment # 9). This
letter has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office who advised staff to proceed with
the application.
ALTERNATIVES
The property is currently an approved PC District which permits the existing multiple-
story residential tower use, including ancillary facilities (rooftop equipment, pool, .parking
area, landscaped grounds). Alternatives that can be considered include the following:
1.Revise the public benefit f’mdings to reflect the Planning Commission’s assessment of
the project.
2.Recommend denial of the project because it does not satisfy the public benefit
requirements of the Code.
3.Recommend a higher or lower number of antennas that would be permitted to be
installed.
4. Recommend modifications to the type, location and/or placement of the antennas.
P:\PCSR\almal01.pc2
8-28-96
Page 9
5.Deny placement of any antennas on the roof by recommending denial of the
application.
6.Recommend denial of the Variance for the height increase that is necessary for the
placement of the proposed whip antennas and the 1.5-foot extension of the existing
parapet wall.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project involves the installation of a wireless communications facility on the rooftop
of an existing residential building. The project would not have a significant fiscal impact
upon the City. This application is subject to the full cost recovery fee schedule.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The project involves the modification of an existing PC (Planned Community) District.
The process for this rezoning action involves: 1) an initial review by the Planning
Commission; 2) review and recommendation by the ARB; 3) review and recommendation
by the Planning Commission; and, 4) review and action by the City Council. Prior to the
installation of the antennas the individual service providers will be responsible for
obtaining all necessary licenses from state and federal agencies that regulate
communications facilities (i.e., State Public Utilities Commission, Federal
Communications Commission, etc.)
P:\PCSR\almaI01 .pc2
8-28-96
Page 10
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment #1: PC Ordinance with Findings and Conditions
Attachment #2:
Attachment #3:
Attachment #4:
Attachment #5:
Attachment #6:
Attachment #7:
Attachment #8:
Attachment #9:
Findings for Variance Request
Findings for Architectural Review Approval.
Location Map
Planning Commission Minutes, June 12, 1996
Architectural Review Board Minutes, July 5, 1996
Letter from Matthews Land Corporation, dated June 26, 1996
Letter from Matthews Land Corporation, dated August 19, 1996
Letter from the Palo Alto Condominium Owners’ Association, dated
August 14, 1996.
[The following attachments are provided to Commission members only]
Attachment #10: Project Description and Public Benefit Statement submitted by the
project sponsor
Attachment #11: Plans
COURTESY COPIES:
Diablo Communications, Inc., c/o Matthews Land Company, Attn: John Ford,
5619 Scotts Valley Drive, Suite 200, Scotts Valley CA 95066
Palo Alto Condominium Owners’ Association, 101 Alma Street, Palo Alto CA 94301
Beth Sheofski, 1220 Brickyard Cove Road, Suite 200, Point Richmond CA 94801
Fred Eyerly, 101 Alma, #1107, Palo Alto CA 94301
Prepared by:Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner
Division!Department Head Approval: Nancy Maddox Lytle. Chief Planning Official
P:\PCSR\almal01 .pc2
8-28-96
Page 11
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS i01 ALMA
STREET FROM PC (ORD. NO.1802) TO PC
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i.
(a) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public
hearing held August 28, 1996, and the Architectural Review Board,
upon consideration at its meeting of July 5, 1996, have recommended
that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code be amended as hereinafter set forth.
(b) The City Council, after due consideration of the
recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as
hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
certain property known as I01 Alma Street (the "subject property")
from "PC Planned Community~ (Ord. No. 1802)" to "PC Planned
Community." The subject property is shown on the map labeled
Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
(a) The site is so situated, and the uses proposed for
the subject property are of such characteristics that the
application of general districts or combining districts~will not
provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development.
Specifically, the site was rezoned from R-4 to PC in 1958
(Ordinance No. 1802) in order to accommodate a multi-story
structure with a maximum height of over 140 feet° The proposed
rooftop multi-user wireless communication facility use
("Communication Facility") was not contemplated at that time, and
therefore is not presently a principally permitted use. There is
no general district or combining district which would accommodate
the existing condominium tower, with or without the Communication
Facility, due to the height and use of the structure.
960822 lac 0080349
1
(b) The project will result in public benefits not
otherwise attainable by application of general districts or
combining districts, as follows:
(i)The improved communications capabilities
made possible by the Communication Facility will be advantageous to
local businesses, residents, and public agencies.
(ii)There is a public benefit to providing a
multi-user, master planned facility that groups different types of
antennas at a coordinated location, thereby reducing the visual
impact on the surrounding community. The multi-user facility
provides for the grouping of antennas at a coordinated location,
potentially reducing the number of individual antenna sites
throughout the City. As a result of the master planning process,
the Communication Facility has been designed to minimize visual
impacts to the surrounding area by integrating the antennas into
the existing rooftop structure, which is set back from the building
face. Placement of the Communication Facility at this location
through use of a PC zone allows a design which takes advantage of
the existing building’s location and height to facilitate signal
coverage, while minimizing views of the Facility from the ground.
(iii)The applicant has offered to and will make
available to the City one antenna mount and the space for
transmitting equipment at the project site. This will benefit the
public by improving the City’s communications capabilities,
especially during an emergency.
(c) The uses permitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and existing and potential uses on
the project site, adjoiningsites, and within the general vicinity,
in that one of the main objectives of the Urban Design Element is
to promote improvements that are of high aesthetic quality and
variety, as well as being considerate of one another. Aesthetic
impacts are of primary concern when reviewing a proposal for the
installation of antennas such as this Communication Facility. The
site location, the height of the existing condominium tower, the
proposed method of installation, and implementation of the project
in accordance with the site development regulations and
requirements of this ordinance will ensure that’ the project will be
consistent with the Urban Design Element.
SECTION 4o Those certain plans prepared by R. B. Welty,
Civil Engineer, approved October i0, 1958 (for the condominium
project), as modified by those entitled "Palo Alto Condo Rooftop
Antenna Design" prepared by Roberts Engineers and Architects for
Diablo Communication, Inc., dated June 27, 1996, and approved by
the Architectural Review Board on July 5, 1996, copies on file in
960822 lac 0080349
2
the Planning Division office and to which copies reference is
hereby made, are hereby collectively approved as the Development
Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.68.120. Said Development Plan is approved for the
following uses, and subject to the following conditions:
(a) Permitted Uses. The permitted uses shall be limited
to those listed as permitted uses under the prior PC zone
(Ordinance No. 1802) and any amendments thereto, multi-family
residential (a maximum of Ii0 units) and accessory uses incidental
thereto, and a Rooftop Multi-User Wireless Communication Facility
consisting of the following:
(i)Whip-type Antennas (32) - A maximum of 32
whip type antennas mounted on the roof of the existing mechanical
house structure on top of the building. The whip antennas shall be
uniform in height and shall extend a maximum of 13.5 feet above a
five-foot parapet wall, up to a maximum height of 155.5 feet above
grade. The whip antennas shall be a maximum of four (4) inches in
diameter and shall be mounted in pairs via a "Kruse" support
structure that shall be screened by the parapet wall.
(ii)Panel Antennas (12) - A maximum of twelve
(12) panel antennas, mounted flush with the top of the mechanical
house parapet wall.. The dimensions of the panels may vary, but may
not exceed a maximum of two feet wide and six feet in height.
(iii)Microwave DishAntennas (4) A maximumof
four (4) microwave dish antennas, mounted on the wall of the
existing mechanical house structure. The dish antennas shall not
exceed a maximum of four (4) feet in diameter. The highest point
of the antenna shall be flush with the top of the mechanical house
parapet wall.
(iv) Electrical or other equipment necessary to
serve the .antennas, which shall be located in the existing
mechanical room on the roof.
(b)
allowed.
Conditional Uses.There are no conditional uses
(c) Site Development Requlations. ~ll improvements and
development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved
Development Plan. The following site development regulations
establish rules for modifications or additions to any building,
accessory structure or landscaping on the subject property.
Definitions of terms used shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.04
(Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
960822 lac 0080349
(i) The maximum height, including antennas,
shall not exceed elevation 155.5 feet.
(ii)Once antennas have been installed
consistent with the approved Development Plan, antennas, mounting
structures and electrical equipment associated with the project may
be modified without the approval of the Architectural Review Board
only if quantity, size and type of antennas remain consistent with
the approved Development Plan, and all electrical equipment is
located within the existing rooftop mechanical house structure.
(iii)Any other exterior changes to the
buildings or any new construction not specifically permitted by the
Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall
require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone.
(d) Parking and Loading Requirements. The parking and
loading requirements governing the subject property shall be in
accordance with the approved Development Plan for the previous PC
zone applicable to the Property (Ordinance No. 1802), which
requires a minimum of 130 off-street parking spaces.
(e) Development Schedule. Construction of the project
shall commence on or before March I, 1997, may occur in phases~
consistent with the requirements of this ordinance, and shall be
completed on or before March I, 2004.
(f) Special Requirements. The following special
conditions and requirements shall apply to the Communications
Facility:
(i)All mounting structures shall be painted
to be compatible with the existing rooftop mechanical house
structure. The panel and dish antennas shall be painted the same
color as the parapet wall and parapet extensiQn. The whip antennas
shall be painted a light grayish blue or other color that will
blend in with the background of the sky.
.(ii)The electrical equipment associated with
the project shall be located within the existing rooftop mechanical
house structure°
(iii)No equipment shall be installed or
operated in a manner which will cause or create interference
problems with licensed frequencies.
(iv)Prior to issuance of a building permit for
the installation of any antennas, a Site Manager for the
Communication Facility shall be designated and the name, address,
and telephone number of the Site Manager shall be provided in
960822 lac 0080349
4
writing to the City’s Police Department and to the Department of
Planning and Community Environment. Any changes to Site Manager
data (name, address, and/or telephone number) shall be promptly
provided in writing to those Departments. The designated Site
Manager shall be the-primary contact person for coordination with
the individual service providers for any problems that arise
concerning interference with licensed frequencies. Resolution of
any frequency interference problem originating at the Communication
Facility shall be the responsibility of the Site Manager.
(v) Prior to the installation of any
transmitters, an Intermodulation Distortion Engineering Study shall
be conducted and a copy submitted for review and approval by the
Communications Division of the City’s Police Department. The City
shall determine whether the transmitters may interfere with City
communications, and if such a determination is made, the
transmitters shall not be installed unless adjustments are made as
necessary to avoid the interference. If the installation of
transmitters is phased, an Intermodulation Distortion Engineering
Study shall be performed and provided to the City for review and
approval in accordance with this paragraph prior to each phased
installation.
(vi) Prior to issuance of building permits for
installation of any antennas, engineering calculations and details
regarding method of support for the antennas shall be submitted to
the City’s Building Inspection Division.
(vii) Any antenna which is no longer functional
shall be promptly removed°
(viii) Sleeves shall be installed for all 32 whip
antennas so that they are of uniform height. All of the sleeves
and/or whip antennas shall be installed at the same time so that a
consistent pattern is established and maintained.
(ix) Prior to issuance of a building permit for
installation of any panel or dish antenna, the precise location of
the antenna shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of
Planning and Community Environment to ensure the orderly, balanced
placement and installation of all antennas. It is the intent of
this condition to allow flexibility in the exlct placement of the
antennas while ensuring that the number of antennas installed on
any one side of the mechanical house structure is not unsightly.
(x) Prior to issuance of a building permit for
the parapet extension, the details of the construction, colors and
materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of
Planning and Community Environment.
960822 lac 0080349
5
(xi) In accordance with one element of the
public benefit proposed by the applicant, one antenna mount and the
space for transmitting equipment will be made available to the City
for its use as follows:
(aa) The City will be allowed access to
one antenna space, or alternatively, access to one combined antenna
scheme subject to proper RE engineering standards and installation
techniques.
(bb) Space will be reserved for use by the
City for its transmission equipment. The size of this equipment
will be equivalent to MSF 5000 Micor, or similar.
(cc) The City will be responsible for the
utility costs associated with its equipment, pro-rated in
accordance with its electrical current consumption.
SECTION 5. This project is categorically exempt from
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
960822 lac 0080349
’C-2049
IZl
PI
PF
EL CAMINO PA
101 Alma Street
Zone Change from Planned
Community (,PC) to allow wireless
antennas.
Scale: 1 inch =200 ft
200 rt
Date: 6-26-96
North
[’TACHMENT #2
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE PC
DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMITATION
!01 Alma Street
Rooftop Multi-User Wireless Communication Facility
File #s 96-ZC-8, 96-V-18 and 96-EIA-13
There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in
that due to the height of the existing condominium tower on the property, an
increase to the maximum height limit is necessary in order to mount any rooftop
equipment that would extend above the existing parapet wall. Specifically, the
height of the existing residential tower (top of parapet wall) is at elevation 140’-6".
The proposed whip antennas will extend above the existing building an additional 15
feet, to an elevation of 155’-6"
The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss
or unnecessary hardship, in that a variance for the increased height is necessary
because the proposed facility is required by the nature of its operation to be located
on top of the building so that it is higher than other surrounding structures.
Because the building is currently non-conforming, any type of roof top equipment
that would extend above the existing parapet wall would require a variance.
The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to subject
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the proposed antennas are
designed and located so that they are of minimal visual impact. The antennas that
will extend above the existing parapet wall will have minimal visual impact on the
residents on the site or nearby, due to the existing height of the residential tower.
P:\PCSR\ALMA101 .VAR
8-28-96
?TACHMENT #3
FINDINGS REGARDING
PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS_
FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Rooftop Multi-User Wireless Communication Facility
File #s 96-ZC-, 96-V-18 a~.d 96-ARB-61
The project has been reviewed for compliance with Section 16.48.010 and 120 of the
PAMC. The project complies with the ARB standards for review is as follows:
Section 16.48.010
The proposed project promotes the orderly and harmonious development of the city
(Goal A) in that the master planning of a multi-user rooftop wireless communication
facility on this site provides a comprehensive, coordinated review of the overall
facility, which results in a facility that has fewer visual impacts on the surrounding
community. The multi-user facility has the potential to reduce the number of
applications submitted by individual communications service providers for antenna
facilities at different locations and at different times.
The proposed project enhances the desirability of residence or investment in the City
(Goal B), in that the improved Communications capabilities made possible by the
proposed facility will be advantageous to local businesses, residents and public
agencies. In addition, the applicant has offered to make available to the City of
Palo Alto, one antenna and one piece of equipment at no cost (except for utilities).
This offering will benefit the public by improving the City’s communications
capabilities, especially during an emergency.
P:\PCSR~RBSTDS.ATT
8-28-96
The proposed project encourages the attainment of the most desirable use of land
and improvements (Goal C), in that the project site and the existing multiple-story
residential tower is particularly well-suited for the proposed communication facility
due to its central location and building height, .which allows the pl.acement of
antennas on the rooftop without significantly changing the height or roof line of the
structure. Due to the height of the residential tower, the visibility of the antennas
from the surrounding area is substantially reduced. Sites such as this are limited in
the City of Palo Alto.
The proposed project enhances the desirability of living conditions upon the
immediate site or in adjacent areas (Goal D), in that the project will provide
improved communications capabilities (including improved emergency
communications) that will be available to the entire cormnunity, while resulting in
minimal visual impact.
The proposed projectpromotes visual environments which are of high aesthetic
quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of one another
(Goal E), in that the site location, the height of the existing condominium tower,
and the proposed method of installation, colors and materials will serve to minimize
the visual and aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed antenna facility. The
placement of antennas around the existing roof top mechanical house structure
provides a coordinated location, minimizes vie,;vs from the ground, and minimizes
the height of the antennas.
~ection 16.48.120
The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Standard #1) in that one of the main objectives of
the Urban Design Element is to promote improvements that are of high aesthetic
quality and variety, as well as being considerate of one another. Aesthetic impacts
are of primary concern when reviewing a proposal for the installation of antennas,
such as those proposed. The site location, the height of the existing condominium
tower, and the proposed method of installation, colors and materials will serve to
minimize the visual and aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed antenna
facility. The placement of antennas around the existing roof top mechanical house
structure provides a coordinated location, minimizes views from the ground, and
minimizes height of the antennas. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan land use
8-28-96
P:\PCSR\ARBSTDS.ATT
map designates the -~.:~ as "Multiple-Family Residential", he proposed project will
not change or interfere with the primary use or density of the existing residential
condominium tower located on the site.
The project design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site
(Standards #2 and 3). Specifically, the proposed rooftop wireless communication
facility has been designed to minimize visual impacts to the surrounding area by
integrating the antennas into the existing rooftop structure which is setback from the
building face. Placement of antennas around the mechanical house structure
provides a coordinated location, minimizes views from the ground, and minimizes
antenna heights to facilitate signal coverage.
The design of the project would be compatible with the existing improvements both
on and offsite (Standard #6). Specifically, the project site and the existing multi-
story residential tower is particularly well-suited for the proposed communication
facility due to its central location and building .height, which allows the placement of
antennas on the rooftop without significantly changing the height or roof line of the
structure.
The materials, textures, colors and details of construction are appropriate for the
function and design of the project and would be con~atible with the neighboring
uses. (Standard #12). Specifically, the proposed colors will help to minimize the
visibility of the proposed antennas. All of the antennas and mounting structures are
to be painted a color that is compatible with the existing rooftop mechanical house
structure. In addition, the panel and dish antennas will not extend above the
existing walls of the mechanical house structure. Furthermore, the electrical
equipment associated with the project is proposed to be located within the rooftop
mechanical house structure.
The project design is energy efficient (Standard #15). FCC regulations requires that
communications be optimized to provide effective communications using minimum
power for proper coverage of the operating area. This is typically done by selecting
an antenna design optimized to meet those needs. Optimal energy use is achieved
by allowing the different types of antennas that’are proposed for ttiis facility.
P:\PCSR~kRBSTDS.ATT
8-28-96
]~LQ__~_:Standards 4,5,7,8,9,10,11,13 and 14 are not applicable to this project based
on the following:
Standard 4 is not applicable in that the existing condominium tower is not known to
have any historical significance.
SlandarxL&is not applicable in that the proposal consists of installing an antenna faculty
on the rooftop of a 140-foot residential tower. The antennas will not significantly alter
the scale or character of the existing building on which it is to be located.
Standards 7.8.9 and 10 are not applicable in that the proposal consists of an unmanned
rooftop antenna facility. No new buildings or activities are proposed (other than
weekly maintenance) that would interfere with the occupants of the building, visitors or
the general community. The proposal will not alter the amount or arrangement of
existing open space. Access to the site will not be affected by the proposal.
Standards 11. 13 and 14 are not applicable in that the site is already developed. Natural
features such as mature landscaping will not be affected.
P:\PCSR\ARBSTDS.ATT
8-28-96
’C-2049
3
::::::::::U’3
::::::::::
FIRE
STA I
.PF
EL CAMINO PA
101 Alma Street
Zone Change from Planned
Community (PC) to allow wireless
antennas.
Scale: 1 inch =200.~t
200 f’r.
North
Wednesday, June 12, 1996
Regular Meeting
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
~RA_L_C_OMMUNI CATIONS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 1996.
2.Approval of Plauning Commission Minutes of May 8, 1996. "
4
4
i.~i:.’:.~3~’’ ’~ ’ "~ :"~l~iiti~l Planning Commission review of an application 5
~ tb rez6r~d flae pi-c~p~rty from PC 1802, which allows multiple-family residential use, to a
PC (Planned Community) district that also allows wireless antennas, including 32 whip
antennas on the existing building, and to allow a maximum height of 155 feet 6 inches to
¯ accommodate the antennas. An environmental assessment is being prepared for this
proposal. File Nos. 96-ZC-3, 96-ARB-61, 96-EIA-13.
1VEW BUSINESS
4.Recommendations to City Council on proposed modifications to Single-Family 17
(R-l) Regulations and Single-Family Demolition Control.
5.Public Art Commission Handbook: Comments on Draft Handbook at the 19
Request of the Public Art Commission.
6. Discussion of plan presented at the Midtown Community Meeting.26
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
7.Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee.29
8.Form Code Committee.29
9.Midtown Committee.29
10.Streamlining Committee.
11.ARB Guidelines Committee.
COMMISSION OUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCE~
12. New Issues in Planning.
13.Reports on Council Actions. ~
29
29
29
29
AGENDA ITEM 3 ""~~ Initial Planning C ,mission review of an
,~plication to rezone the property from I~ 1802, which allows multiple-
family residential use, to a PC (Planned Community) district that also
allows wireless antennas, including 32 whip antennas on the existing
building, and to allow a maximum height of 155 feet 6 inches to
accommodate the antennas. An environmental assessment is being
prepared for this proposal. File Nos. 96-ZC-3, 96-ARB-61, 96-EIA-13.
Does staff have any additional information for us tonight?
~: I would like to introduce Jayni Allsep, the contract planner who prepared the report.
She will give a very brief presentation, and then we will both be here to answer questions.
,~Ili.~,llI~: Thank you, Lisa. My presentation will be a brief overview, and then as Lisa said,
we will be available to answer questions. The proposal involves the installation of antennae on
the rooftop of the existing residential condominium tower located at 101 Alma Street. The
proposed wireless communications facility is intended as a multi-user facility that would be
available to several types of communication carriers, including paging companies, dispatch
services and wireless telephone providers. There are three types of antennas proposed as part of
this application.. I will briefly go over the three types. There are a total of 32 whip-type antennas
¯ that are proposed to be mounted on the roof of the mechanical structure that is on top of the
building. The elevation on the board there illustrates the types ofantermas, as well as their
proposed locations. The whip antennas would extend a maximum of 15 feet above the existing
parapet wall on the top of the roof structure. The second type of antennas proposed are eight
panel antennas. They are one foot by four feet in height and would be mounted on each of the
four sides of the mechanical structure, two on each of the four sides. The third type is a
microwave dish antenna. There are four dish antennas proposed, two on the east and west sides
of the mechanical structure. I should mention that the microwave antennas are proposed to be
pole mounted. All of the antennas are proposed to be painted in a color that is compatible with
the existing rooftop and mechanical structures.
Electrical equipment associated with the project is to be located within the existing structure on
that roof that now contains the mechanical equipment for the building. This proposal is being
processed as a PC zone change. Although the site currently has a PC zone designation, this zone
was established back in 1958 for the development of the condominium tower. The current PC
zone change would establish a new zone thatwould expand the permitted uses to allow the
installation of the antenna facility.
In addition, the application includes a request to increase the maximum height an additional 15
feet. This is necessary in orderto extend the whip antennas that would extend 15 above the
current maximum height of the building. Variance findings for this height increase are included
in Attachment 1 of the staff report. ,
There is one additional item I would like to mention, a request by the applicant for the
modification of two of the draft conditions. There is a memo before you from Matthews Land
Company. The proposed change requested by the applicant involves combining two conditions
that are contained in that attachment. There is proposed wording in that memo. Both myself and
KITIPCMINS.31A:\6-12.PC
6-12-96
Page 5
the assistant city attome" ,ve had an opportunity to briefly review ~he proposed changes. We
feel we could probably w~,,K something out, but we would like to ~._ e the opportunity to run this
wording by our communications technician .in the police department who has been involved in
reviewing this application and in making recommendations regarding conditions. Since this is
the first hearing on the PC zoning, we seek to resolve this before it returns to the Planning
Commission. However, if there is any direction you would like to give us, we would be happy to
hear that. That concludes my comments.
~a~mlt~LD_~2aa~: Are there any questions at this point? I have one. I know that this is
essentially a private matter in terms of negotiations between wireless companies and landowners
and where these may go up, and the city has to approve, them in some cases. Does the city have
any sense as to whether thi’s is the best site for these antennas? Are there other locations in this
area that might be better for antennas?
~: I know from the applicant’s point of view, and to a great extent, I think staff would
agree that because of the height of the existing tower, it is particularly well suited from a visual
point of view. It is so high up that by the time you get far enough away, to see the top of the
building the visual impact is quite diminished.. So I would tend to feel that it is a rather suitable
site for these antennae. There are not too many buildings of this height in a location that would
serve a wide area for us to choose from.
~mamBe~fl~: In that sense, I was wondering, in particular, about City Hall and 525
University Avenue. I don’t know if either of those are higher than 101 Alma or whether they
would offer a better range.
~: 525 University Avenue is loaded with antennas. We have traditionally gotten many,
many requests over the years to complement those that are already existing with additional ones.
So it is quite heavily used for that purpose. We have another office building on California
Avenue that is also a common location. We had a PC zone change, in fact, to allow similar
utilities on top of that building. In Foothill locations, we have at least three that are very popular
antenna farm locations in our foothills. Regarding City Hall, I believe we have taken a policy of
not utilizing it for private purposes. I do not know of any agreement with the city to allow the "
roof to be used for that purpose.
~: One thing I wanted to make sure of is, if these antennas were to go up at
101 Alma versus another possible site, thatbeeause of 101 Alma not being as high as 525
University Avenue, there is no great benefit to that in terms of range, and therefore would not
have more antennas than some other location.
~: You could address that question to the applicant. We do not have the expertise on
our staff to understand about any detrimental effect to others. I know there is a condition that
relates to that specific issue in the proposed draft conditions. ,
Are there other questions?
KIT1PCMINS.31A:\6-12.PC
6-12-96
Page 6
" : I "at the Stanford parking lot, looking ul" the roof, and tried to
imagine the 32 whip ante._ ~as up there. I want to know if they are ~,mg to exceed the height of
the existing. There is one that looks like a whip antenna there now. Would the 32 new ones
exceed that height?
~: The 32 whip antennas will extend up to 15 feet above the parapet wall, that is, above
a mechanical roof building. So they will be the tallest thing you will be able to see on the roof
that would extend beyond the existing equipment on the roof now, according to my
understanding. There is a dish and some other equipment up there now, and these would be
above that. It will be 32 of them placed in pairs of two.
The elevation is shown to be about twice the height of the existing antennas.
ChairmanBg~ed~n: I will now open the public hearing. First we will hear from the applicant.
Jim Simpson. 5916 $cotts Valley Boulevard. Scotts Valley: I am a land Use planner with
Matthews Land Corporation representing Diablo Communications this evening. I want to give
you a brief history on Diablo, ifI may. They are a company that was started in 1959 with the
development of communications faeilifies. They now extend their services throughout Northem.
California to Central California and down to Southern California. Their original site was located
"on Mt. Diablo. The company routinely provides the site management responsibilities that are
addressed in the draft conditions of approval,-along with providing radio engineering, field
technicians, expertise, facilities monitoring and customer service. The project before you tonight
is unique in two senses, really. One, it is a PC zon.e that was established in 1958 for a residential
condominium tower. At that time, there was no provision for allowing compatible uses on the
site. So that is unique to this site; you have the height to accommodate wireless communication
facilities, yet you have that which is not being allowed on the site.
You had a question regarding the suitability or desirabiliy of the site. Some of that is a radio
engineering question, which Paul Kammeyer can address. Again, our understanding is that the
types of uses that would be on this site are not exactly the same as Cellular One, GTE Mobilnet,
etc. These would be smaller scale paging companies such as taxieab dispatch, truck dispatch,
other types of small-scale users sueh as that. So they are not necessarily looking for a site that is
going to be part of larger network. Also, that is one of the draft conditions for this application, to
provide studies of the modeling that show that the frequencies they will be adding to the site will
not cause interference. If you have other more technical type questions, we have a
eornmunieations representative present.
Again, the overall scheme of the project is to provide a master plan so that we do not have
numerous providers eoming in to the city asking for more approvals for adding antennas. Diablo
Communications is experienced in managing antenna farms, both in a rural setting and in a
setting like this. The intent here is to alleviate the multi-user applieaIions in the city. Basieaily,
the whips, as Jayni mentioned, are going to be attached on the roof and extend above that. Right
now, there is about a two-and-a-half foot high parapet wall. The envelope for these antennas will
be a maximum of 15 .feet above the roof.
KITIPCMINS.3IA:\6-12.PC
6-12-96
Page 7
The panels and the ~ ~¢ave dish antennas will be flush. The" ~-.’ill not extend above any
background screen. They will be painted out with colors that bl,.La. Antennas are normally a
gray color. In addition, Diablo Communications is willing to entertain accommodating space for
a city antenna at no cost except for utilities. That will be a public benefit. We do that on other
sites. Basically, in summary, we are in agreement with the conditions. We are open to
consolidating and trying to fine-tune them a little bit.
Are there any questions?
~: I do not understand why the fact that your company is putting these
antennas at this location would keep some other company from coming in and putting up
antennas at another site¯
]~.,_S.iI:III~: It is true, it would not prevent another company from coming in and looking for
another site. This particular site was chosen by Diablo Communications because of the types of
uses they provide. That does not prevent another company from finding another site that they
feel is appropriate for their uses. There are not that many larger buildings in the city. The intent
for this one is for a master plan that will accommodate multiple users so that you do not have a
lot of other rooftop antenna applications. It will not prevent that, however.
"~: What you are saying is that you presume that since you have this
excellent site, other people will use your site¯
~L_SJmI~: That is correct. The intent of Diablo Communications is that they sublease the
space to someone so that they do not have to come through and individually service the
equipment.
" : I need to get a better understanding of exactly what this is. Is it
intended that this, then, serve a relatively small area in a circle about the location? Or is a
repeater type of signal that would serve the whole bay area? Where is the next closest Diablo
Communications site? How does the site work?
would have to defer to our engineer to answer that question.
¯v ": I am the director of operations for
Diablo Communications. A general answer to that question is that most of the customers we see
these days are in the 900 megahertz range. In that range, the average coverage for a site like this
is three to five miles. Within that three to five mile area, the personal communications systems
(PCS) customers that we see coming to us are the talk back paging people answering a page
where you also send back a message that says yes, I received that page. Those types of systems
do not have a large area of coverage. That is why we look for rooftops like this that are rather
prominent, not necessarily, the biggest thing in town; because geherally, the largest buildings in
town have already been used and are full. These systems require very good management because
they locate sensitive receivers at the same site, so we tend to stay away from a very popular site
that is already overcrowded. As far as the nearest range to the next site, we are also developing
one in Mountain View on a large building. The nearest ones we have to the north are in the San
Francisco area.
KITIPCMINS.31A:\6- I:2.PC
6-12-96
Page 8
Ca)~zlmissJ~merS;,hmi~: ~" ~ you have other sites on residential bt)" "ngs?
]~L.I~t~I~I;1.~.Y~: Yes, but more in the Southern California area than we do up here. Most of the
ones we presently have here are on office buildings.
Commissioner Schmid~: It is mentioned in the application proposal letter that this could be used
for emergency preparedness. Could you elaborate a little more on what public uses there might
be?
h:it,J(~,~~: We have made the site available to your city emergency services personnel.
They have come up with some clauses (?) they would like us to do so that we do not bother their
frequencies. We have given them the opportunity to install a transmitter at the site that would
allow some emergency communications for them.
Commissioner Schmi~: So it strictly involves the City of Palo Alto. It is not part of a greater
network.
1~: No, at present, it is not. The only thing I can think of that would come under
that category would be an amateur radio system. We presently do not have any plans for that.
’ChairmaaBeexham: We will now hear from other members of the public, who will each have
five minutes.
Doss Welsh. 5 East Creek Place. Menlo Park: I am here to speak about the proposed rezoning of
101 Alma Street. I am very disturbed at the plan to change the zoning to accommodate a large
number of antennas on the existing roof of the building. I live in Menlo Park about a block away
as the crow flies from 101 Alma. The building towers over my corner of town, giving the tenants
a bird’s eye view of my entire home and yard. Most significantly, this building is a monstrosity,
something very unpleasant to look at. It is completely out of character with current architectural
standards of Palo Alto and Menlo Park. If it were to be brought before either city planning
commission today, it would not be approved. I am dismayed at the possibility of having to view
a building that will look more like an airport control tower than an apartment building. The
existing structure already blocks a considerable view of the skyline from my yard. I should not
have to look at the additional anomaly of these antennas. I understand that these antennas are not
for the convenience of the residents of 101 Alma, but basically for the convenience of a wireless
communication company. What this means is that I have to look at a forest of electronic towers
so that people can receive messages or get better reception on their eellnlar phones.
I am against the granting, of this variance for a number of reasons. They will simply add to the
existing eyesore of 101 Alma. They will only be the first of these devices to be placed on this
building, because the scarcity of tall buildings in the area will mandate that other companies will
place a demand on that building, as well. Once this project is appro~,ed, many other antennas
will be added to aceornmodate the growing wireless eommuuieations industry. They will be
installed on the side of the building that faces the residential neighborhood of Palo Alto and
Menlo Park. In one Of the drawings I saw, they were placed on the north side, and I live directly
north in Menlo Park. It seemed that most of the whip antennas were to be placed on that side,
since that is where the utility building is located. I am also concerned about what dangers these
KIT1PCMINS.31A:\6-12.PC
6-12-96
Page 9
things might provide in t’ s of transmissions of radio waves. I s~ "~gly urge that you do not
approve this variance and send a clear message to the wireless coru .adcation industry that this
is an inappropriate use for a residential neighborhood. I was going to suggest the City Hall, but
now I understand you do not want them either, so I do not know where else they could be placed,
but I would like you to consider another location. Thank you.
~: I live about halfa block ~rom 101 Alma Street.
My concern is limited entirely to the potential health impacts of being so close to the source of
microwave radiation. I would like the Planning Commission to consider the health effects.
Thank you.
Are there any questions for the applicant?
.... : I have a question. The chair of the commission suggested a couple of
other buildings, and we discussed those. I assume you have looked at those and disregarded
them. Are there other buildings in Palo Alto that you looked at for this equipment?
ML_i~: In this particular case, my company did not do a feasibility study for selecting the
building. I know that other locations were looked at, but because of restrictions of height and
location, 101 Alma is the best location.
]~r.,.l~L~: Not being in the acquisitions group, we do have a person who specifically looks
for sites. I do know that over a six-month period, several buildings were looked at in the area.
We did do some work with the people at 525 .University Avenue. We understood from them that
that building was under some sort of moratorium or at least was being strongly looked at because
I will even admit, it is an eyesore and would take some severe management to get it turned
around. So we did not pursue that building because ofthat. We are not the type of company that
is a single use, so we would not find it suitable for just one customer, and one or two customers
would be all you could put up there. I don’t know the other building you talked about, but I do
know that after looking at this particular site, the height of the building being one of the tallest in
the area and the ability to negotiate with the owner, which of course is something you always
have to look at. There may be a taller buildin, g, but that building may not want the use, so we
have to take that into consideration as well. I know there were several buildings we looked at,
and this is the one we ended up with.
.~: Could you respond to the last speaker who ~ked about the health
impacts of microwave radiation.
~eyer.: A lot of people have a misconception about an omni-antenna and what it does,
as compared to a microwave antenna. The term "microwave" usually puts people off to begin
with,.and that there is some danger involved. The level coming out of most microwave dishes is
not as much as that which comes out of the microwave oven in your house. In this instance, the
dishes on this roof are receive-antennas anyway. They are not transmit antennas; so there is no
specific microwave radiation emitting from the building. The 900 megahertz paging is at a
power level that anyone more than 10 to 15 feet away could stand there for the rest of their life
and not have enough radiation picked up in their body to bother anyone, and that is with 30
antennas on the roof. So it is not an issue of individual danger. Again, the FCC is presently
KITIPCMINS.31A:\6-12.PC
6-12-96
Page 10
working on a new stand~ "*hat we all have to follow¯ All of this. ;,pment is type-accepted by
the Federal Communicat,_.,s Commission. Once type-accepted, th~’ test it for standard levels of
transmission, making sure it is not transmitting something it is not supposed to. I believe that at
the end of August, the FCC has to have a document ready that states what standard they are
going to adopt. Once that standard is adopted, we will all live by it. We will maintain and
engineer the site to maintain the levels below whatever the standard is.
" : You partially answered my question in your last answer. I want to
know a little more about the three different types of antennas up there, which I assume do
different things.
]~r.~,~ai~..~: Yes, the different types of antennas do different things. The 32 whip antennas,
are a maximum buildout. This is a progression over time. We are not going to move in 32
antennas on Day One. We do not have 32 customers. We do have a few waiting in the wings,.
but not nearly that amount. The panel antennas are only requested in the event we have a
customer that needs that type of antenna. At the present time, the only customers we have for the
building are paging customers, and paging customers do not use panel antennas. The microwave
dishes, as you will recall, are receiving dishes. They receive the microwave signals from a
satellite. Then they are transmitted.
’ t: So are they transmitted from the whip antennas?
h:l/.d~gIlalg.g~: Yes. In the future, we may have a personal’communications system customer,
or PCS customer, come to us with the new wireless digital telephones that may require panel
antennas to get the particular area of coverage. One thing about PCS is that their cell sites have
to be much smaller, much closer together, so they will have to erect their transmission to a
specific area. That would require the panel antennas in a particular area of the building. We do
not know which ones, as of yet.
’ " : I assume that the taller the whip antenna, the better.
h:l/.d~gl;llmf,~: Not necessarily. The shortest 900 megahertz antenna is about ten feet to get the
type of gain they want for the transmission and the area of coverage. For the maximum of 15
feet, we can combine a couple of transmitters into one antenna. That is about a 12-foot-long
antenna. So by the time .you get done, that is why we requested the maximum of 15 feet. There
are 20-foot antennas out there, but we are not going to use those. ’
i i " : Are you saying that the antennas may not be 15 feet, and that they
might only be 12 feet above the top?
h:lL.]Sh~ll~Itlg.g~: Yes, some of them might not be.
" : So they might not all be the same height.
~: One of the speakers mentioned having these on the residential side of the
building. If they are going to be phased in, I wondered if they could be phased in, for example,
on the El Camino side first.
¯ KITIPCMINS.31A:\6-12.PC
6-12-96
Page 11
]~,~t~~: Actual’ he antennas will be more centrally loot" -1 on the building. They are
really not mounted to one side or the other. ~
Aren’t they on the internal saxucture and go around the perimeter?
]~K~I~..~: What I had envisioned on this original design was to build a structure right in
the very center of the top penthouse. That will hold the antennas.
: I see on the drawings a rectangular structure on the roof, and it is about
one-third the length of the building. So I wondered whether the antennas would be on the fi’ont
or back of that rectangular structure.
]~r~~..~: That may be misdrawn a little. My original conception of this design was to
put it right in the center of that raised structure, so that they are not on one side or the other.
~: So they are all in one row, not around the perimeter?
No, they are actually two by two in two rows.
And how far apart are the two rows?
About three feet.
Commissioner Schink: Since this has been described as an antenna farm, I though I would ask
you what are we planting here. Also, what we are planting, is it going to grow over the next 20
years? What should we expect it to look like in 20 years?
~: You would have to have a crystal ball to know what technology is going to do
over the next 20 years. Five years ago, I did not even envision some of the technology we are
seeing now. So things will change a lot faster than I can even imagine fight now., so I cannot
predict. What we have asked for will last us five to ten years. I do not foresee technology
getting larger, either. Everything is getting smaller. What took 25-and 30-foot antennas ten
years ago now takes 3 to 12 feet. Some of the panels are getting smaller. Everything is getting
miniaturized, and I am sure it will be less, not more, in ten years.
" : Also, do you foresee these antennas sometime in the future allowing us
to take down a lot of the telephone lines that are strung up around town?
Mr. Kammeyer: Yes. Most definitely.
~: With that, I will close the public heating and bring this item back to the
Planning Commission. At this point, are there further questions for sta~.
KIT1PCMINS.31A:\6-12.PC
6-12-96
Page 12
: C’ "of the questions that came up in the d; ~ssion was that a PC zone
has a variety of uses in k..Ay understanding was that our PC zone~ are very specific as to what
is allowed. He mentioned that part of the restrictions for this site was that it was just residential
and that most PC zones have a variety of uses in them. My understanding is that when we craft a
PC zone, it is very specific.
~: We have seen both types of PC zones. Some of them allow a variety of uses. Our
most recent PCs downtown, for example, have a tendency to mimic the downtown regulations in
terms of what uses they allow. The old PC zones, in particular, tended to be either fairly wide
open or fairly specific about their uses. It just depended upon the situation. They really nailed it
as only office, or they opened it up to include a whole variety of things. So we see a range. This
one, in particular, has a narrow range.
Commissioner Cassel: The way this is designed, it is presumed that the city would want to
accept antennas at this site¯ Do we? Will it be useful to us?
~: We will need to coordinate with our Communications and Police Department on that.
They have not said whether they want this site or not. We will be talking with them about it.
~: I believe you have, in a previous Planned Community zone application, made a
’determination that this type of utility is, indeed, a public benefit. In that instance, it was an
antenna farm that would allow for better cellular phone use. The commission concluded in that
ease that it was a public benefit. That was the basis upon wkieh staff has made their
recommendation on this item tonight. This type of paging service is a contemporary
convenience for the Palo Alto public. In addition to the proposal for allowing city services, we
found that allowing this type of utility on a high building could help in the convenience of our
residents in terms of the types of response to services that they were describing in their
testimony.
~: I remember that issue¯ That was an antenna that we put in an area that
was a mixed use area. This one is a little different in that it is basically residential, a point made
by an earlier speaker.
That is correct. The former application was an office building.
: I have a suggestion that we ask the Architectural Review Board to look
at colors for the antennas that would blend into the screen and would look better than the green
antennas shown on the drawings. That would look better on a tall tree than on a building.
~: I would like to clarify that the colors on the map on the wall are just arbitrary and
not intended to represent the actual colors of the antennas.
" : I heard from one of the speakers that some of the antennas might not be
15 feet. I was thinking about the aesthetic judgrnent that it could look very ragged, and this
KIT1PCMINS.31A:\6-12.PC
6-12-96
Page 13
building is a prominent f ’we on our skyline. It would have one ~’- ’k if they are all of a
uniform height, making it ~leat and tidy. There is a different look i..ey are of varying heights.
That could be interesting, or it could be ragged. Would there be a problem with requiring them
all to be 15 feet?
~: That may be something you could refer to the Architectural Review Board for them
to evaluate..
" " : If this is a PC zone, it means that they are going to see thj’s as a natural
course of business somewhere down the road. Those are typically the items that they look at, or
should look at.
~: We are getting into a discussion on the issue of visual effects. On the one
hand, I .am certainly sensitive to someone who lives fight next to the building and can see it from
their backyard, which is not my situation. I do live in downtown Palo Alto, probably within a
half mile of the site, but it is screened from my house and my street b)~ a number of other
buildings. In the past few days, I did go over to the Stanford Shopping Center and looked at 101
Alma from the parking lot. IfI had not done that, I would have no idea of what is on top of that
building. I have lived in this area for more than 15 years, and I had no idea that there was
already a microwave dish up there and what the top looks like, etc. My general feeling is that if
"someone looks at it, they would say, "Oh yes, there it is." But it very quickly becomes
background, and having the intent of these being the same height or a little different is not going
to be noticed by many people at all in Palo Alto, except for those who backyards are staring up at
it.
Commissioner Oiakian: The first thing that struck me when I read this report was, here we are
again looking at the utilization of a PC zone for a situation that, to me, did not seem like it quite
fit. It is another example of why we n6ed some other tools in our package to look at certain ¯
situations and address them for what they are, not trying to fit them into what we have. Having
said that, I know that does not help the applicant in this case. Since this is what we have
available, this is what we will be using. The only issue that I am grappling with (and I appreciate
the comment you just made, Bern) is the whole aesthetic impact on the people in the surrounding
neighborhoods. The last time we approved this antenna, it was in the California Avenue area and
it really did not impact anybody. That is why we had no one come and speak against it. It was a
very similar situation where we put a PC zone, or took a site that perhaps even had a PC zone,
but granted a variance because the antenna was going to come several feet above what was
allowable. In that particular situation, we had very little comment from the eornmission. We
basically said yes, it seemed like the fight thing to do for that type of use at hand.
I am more than happy to see this particular proposal go on, since this is in the conceptual phase
of the PC zone. I am happy to see it go on through the next stages and have it come back to us. I
will be very interested in seeing what the Architectural Review Board has to say when they take
a look at this project. The main thing that really has to be worked with is how they can tone
down or not make conspicuous the antennas that are on the building. Whether that be through
colors or some other means, I will be happy to see what they suggest. So I will be in support of a
motion that would pass this on to the next stage.
KIT1PCMINS.3IA:\6-12.PC
6-12-96
Page 14
CommissionerSdmlid.l: .upport Vic’s comments that it does se ~ike a PC is a difficult tool
to be using to add antenn..o~to a building, but that is what is availabie, so we will work with that.
It seems like a reasonable thing to do. I also want to comment that the aesthetics of it obviously
do not bother anyone living at 101 Alma. I would think we would have a lot of people
complaining about the addition of these elements to the roof line, because people take pride in
where they live, if it were a problem for them. However, I do not see any people here tonight
objecting to it. I do think the ARB might want to comment upon uneven height or same height
for the antennas. The plate and dish antennas will blend into the penthouse.
" : I would only add that I support the idea of going forward with the
antennas. I would hope we would include some language in this ordinance that would require
that when the antennas are no longer functional, they would be removed. The only reason I bring
this up is that it has always bothered me that there is an antenna structure on El Camino that has
been nonfunctional for 25 years. So I am looking off into the future when these are meaningless.
I want someone to take them down at that time.
i : I keep running into these times where I want the Public Art Commission
to comment on things. The Architectural Review Board is probably adequate here, but if we are
going to have this thing on top of the building, it would be interesting if it were interesting,
although you do not tend to see an awful lot of it. What you see of that building are ’the brown
"bands that come around the building, which is protection for people’s porches. Those brown
bands are so striking that as I looked up one day from Stanford Shopping Center, I thought the
building had burned. As I got closer, I realized they were the screenings to keep people from
falling off their porches, so I suspect they will not see what is on the roof because the bands
around the building are so predominant and s~ong. It would be interesting if some rhythm and
pattern happens to those antennas.
" : I recommend a look at Klutz Press for little things bobbing around on
roof lines. It might be interesting if someone wants to pursue that.
~: One thing we need to talk about are comments on the public benefits. Staff
lists four in their report. Maybe I am more of a stickler than most people on public benefits, but I
think they ought to be very strict and clear. They are listed on Page 3 of the staff report, as well
as Page 1 of Attachment #1. On the latter page, the first item, "The improved communications
capabilities will be advantageous to local businesses, residents and public agencies" is the only
really valid public benefit of all of these items. That is indeed true. The second item talks about
its being a public benefit to do a master plan. Doing a master plan is to the advantage of the
applicant, and certainly to the city, because it makes it procedurally simpler, but I do not see that
as being any type of public benefit to the citizens of Palo Alto. I would certainly say to do it,
however, as it is important for everyone involved to do so.
~: I believe our rationale in accepting that as a public benefit was that it is visually
coordinated and usually advantageous to everyone if these antennas are e’oordinated.
~: I agree with that. It is advantageous, but to say that that makes it a public
benefit for a PC zone is a little bit of a circular argument. I could go either way, but I have Some
concerns on that. I suppose that also says, for the next item, that by grouping things together, it
KITIPCMINS.31A:\6-12.PC
6-12-96
Page 15
is a benefit. It is true thr~.~ e concern is that this does not prohibit - prevent anything else from
happening. The applieam s intent is hoping that by being able to t,..r this location to other
services, nobody else will come in. Finally, Item (iv), that this is set back from the edge of the
building and will have less visual impact mitigates an impact, but again, I do not see that as
being a public benefit that warrants making this a PC. Those things being said, in any case, I feel
the overriding public benefit is that listed in Item 1. That, by itself, is more than adequate to
support the findings necessary.
" " : We could add what is in the staff report on Page 3, which is that the
project sponsor will consider accommodating one antenna and a piece of equipment for the City
of Palo Alto, and I think we should strike "reduced" and just leave "no cost" for the public
benefit and safety. Then confirm whether our safety group feels this is something they can
utilize.
Commissioner Beecham: That is a good thought, and to be effective, we should also eliminate
from that same paragraph "will consider accommodating" and replace it with "will
accommodate." I will leave that to the sponsor. I do not see that as being required at this point,
but certainly if he can make a firm offer, I am sure the city would be agreeable.
Commissioner Oiakian:. Since staff brought this up at the beginning, we do have a letter here
from Matthews Land Corporation in which they suggest a change in wording to two of the
conditions, Conditions Off) and (v) under (e) with this phrase. I am not sure why we need to do
that, frankly. I have read both wordings several times, and I’am not sure what the difference is
by adding those in, except for the use of the words "licensed frequencies" versus the way it is
written by the staff. I just throw that out on the table to see if other commissioners have thoughts
on that. I am satisfied with what is in the staff report.
~: Since at this point, we are looking at a draft report, the city and the
applicant have quite a bit of latitude in this. What is before us tonight is to comment upon the
findings of public benefit. So if anyone has any comments on that, it would be useful to the
applicant. Also, to approve the d_raft findings and forward the application to the ARB.
" : I would like to comment that when the applicant returns to the Planning
Commission, if they are uncomfortable with the idea of providing the antenna at no cost instead
of a reduced cost, they could address that issue at that time. I do not feel we have enough facts at
this time to say to them, you have to provide this antenna to the city at no cost. It seems like a
little tax we are throwing in here. We were all ready to approve this without getting that little
extra benefit. So I am uncomfortable with saying they have to do it at no cost, unless they are
willing to go along with that. Otherwise, let’s hear all of the issues about reduced versus no cost.
~: I would like to clarify that this is not a proposed staff condition. The issue is
whether the applicant is proposing that as part of the public benefit package. I thought I heard
tonight that the applicant may be leaning in that direction. It is not an issue of the city’s making
them do that. It is a question of your evaluating public benefit¯ They have indicated that this
may be something they are going to add to the package. Staff is to talk to the police department
to see if it is something useful, but the city is not requiring this.
KITIPCMINS.31A:\6-12.PC
6-12-96
Page 16
~310&m~:~fl~3a: Ax, " -~ that effect, so far, it is not listed as It. (v) in the draft findings.
We would appreciate it, ,__ course!
Commissioner Cassel: When it comes back, it needs to be made clear.
" : I move that we approve the draft findings and move this
forward to the AR.B.
~: By Commissioner Ojakian.
MD_TID~N~_ASSF~: Chaimaan~c~a~: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All
those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0¯
This item is scheduled to go to the ARB on July 5.
~: I do want to make one comment on the health impacts. There was an issue
brought up about potential health impacts of this. To my understanding, radiation of all sorts is
heavily assessed by the federal government, with recommendations on most anything that emits
any kind of radiation. I am by no means an expert on radiation, and I know there are concerns
about cellular phones and pacemakers, etc. I do put my trust in the federal government having
¯ completely evaluated any radiation impacts of this application. In that ease, I am not worried
about this health issue.
-~Q.ENDA ITEM 4 Recommendations to City Council on PrOPosed modifiea ’~~to Single-
~
Family (R" 1) Regulati°ns and Single-Family DTl’~ti°fi C°ntr°l"
~: I am recalling our plan of action here. Jon, is~ a followup to diseussiom
"wehavehad?
~~/
-
¯ " " : My~ollection, though not s~g, was that we were hoping it could be
agendized again so that we couI~ard our, s on that discussion to the City Council.
~: Do we have anyth’ha~oncise enough to forward to the council?’’
/ \Your cket pt d by you, and the best summ iS
on Page 20 of the ~d/May 8th. On Pag~,~, Chairman Beeeham summarizes by
saying, "Let me ~a.ve i.den_tifie.d, which_perhaps
warrant some att~~sted. One, increased square
footage for the HI~ n’~ount rear.garages ".m FAR_.
Others, in no p~a~propriate to neighborhoods,
6-12-96
KIT1PCMINS.31A:\6-12.PC Page 17
fTECTURAL REVIEW
July 5, 1996
Excerpt Minutes
101 Alma Street
Diablo Communications, Inc.
96-ARB-61
96-ZC-3; 96oEIA-13
Initial Architectural Review Boar£1 review of an application to zone the property from PC 1802
which allows multiple-family residential us.e, to a PC (Planned Community) District that also
allows wireless antennas, including 32 whip antennas on the existing rooftop mechanical house
and twelve panel and four microwave antennas on the roof of the existing building and to allow a
maximum height of 155 feet 6 inches to accommodate the antennas. An environmental
assessment is being prepared for this proposal.
Ms. Maser: Are there any staff comments? Please introduce yourself.
.Ms. Allsep: I am Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner. I have a couple of comments to add, which is
to note that modifications that have been proposed by the applicant since the project was
reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 12. Those changes are outlined in the staff report
on Page 2, as well as in the letter submitted by Matthews Land Company representing Diablo
Communications. Probably the most significant change, in terms of the project description, is
that they are proposing to increase the number of panel antennas from 8 to 12. There are also
some other proposed modifications in terms of allowing greater flexibility in the exact placement
Of the panel antennas, as well as the microwave dish antennas. The panel antennas are proposed
to be mounted flush on the walls. They would not extend above the parapet wall height. In
staff’s opinion, the increase from 8 to 12 is probably not going to be noticeable. There were
some issues raised by the Planning Commission and the public at the June 12th meeting as
reflected in the draft minutes.
Ms. Maser: Are there questions by the board members?
.Mr. Ross: You have answered one of my questions which was, will the enlarged (panel)
antennas be any higher than the original proposal. It sounds like the answer is no.
Ms. Allsep: Part of the modification would be to increase the heigh.t of the parapet wall. So in a
sense, yes, they would be higher, but since the wall is also being raised, they would not extend
above the parapet wall. In terms of elevation, they will be one-and-a-half feet higher than what
was originally proposed.
_Mr. Ross: On Page 3 of the staff report, second bullet at the bottom, could you complete the
sentence, as it has gotten chopped off. ’
7.--5-96
KITIPCMINS 1996-31A:\10 IALMA.ARB
96-ARB-61
1
Ms. All~et2: While looking i. __ ~he answer to your question, I will cla that there are certain
requirements with regard to the licensing and the ANSI requirements that require clearance from
the bottom of the antenna to the ground. In order to meet that requirement, there had to be more
clearance or space between the rooftop and where the panel is mounted. That is why they are
proposing modifying the parapet so that they can actually mount the panel and satellite antennas
higher up from the roof surface. They can probably explain that further if you ~vish.
Now I can complete that sentence’for you. It says, "The multi-user facility reduces the number
of applications submitted by individual communication service providers for antenna facilities at
different locations and at different times." ’The idea is that since this is intended as a multi-user
facility, it would provide the opportunity for different communication providers to be
consolidated in a master plan at this one site as opposed to individual applications being
submitted.
Mr. Ross: Is this as worded by the applicant? (Yes) To clarify my understanding of the
Planning Commission comments, that was considered to be speculation, not a promise, since
there is really no control by this entity over other people who might make applications in the
future.
Ms. Allsep: That is certainly true.
Mr. Ross: It sounded to me, from reading the Planning Commission minutes, that this might be
a phased installation over time. There might be a few whip antennas, and then that would
increase to an ultimate maximum of a certain number. I am wondering how that collates with the
inspection process, if there is one, from the Building Department, and the time limit on an ARB
approval. Normally, our approvals are limited in time for a period of two years, so that the final
inspection for a project --
Ms. Grote: This, however, is a Planned Community zone change. So if they phase this into their
development and it is documented in the written application materials, we can approve a phased
PC. That would be with your approval, as well as the City Council’s approval.
Mr. Ross: And at the end of the phased period - what happens?
Ms. Grote: They would need to comply with whatever Council approved. So they would need to
have all 12 in place for the panel antennas, and all of their other antennas, as well.
Mr. Ross: Or potentially lose their rights for installing, those they have not installed.
.Ms. Grote:
Ms. Maser:
That is correct.
Bob, do you have any questions for staff?.
Mr. Peterson: Not a question, but I have one comment I would like to have covered in the
presentation. I would like to see what these things look like. Hopefully, we can’see a picture of
a whip antenna, etc.
7.5-96
KIT[PCMINS 1996o3[A:\ I 01ALMA:ARB
96-ARB-61
2
Ms. Maser: Next, we will h, the presentation by the applicant.
John Ford, Matthews Land Company: We would like to thank Jayni for completing the staff
report and working with this project. It is very complete, and we feel that all of the issues are
there. We are thankful that she has been able to incorporate all of the changes and the additional
information we provided to her recently.
I want to begin by giving you an ~verview of what Diablo Communications does. They provide
for multi-user wireless facilities. This is a fairly new concept which has not been around very
much. There are a few of them in the bay area in San Francisco. Our tower is located in some of
the more rural areas. Diablo originally started with a multi-user tower on Mount Diablo, hence
the name. What this will do is to bring together many different wireless users, such as paging
companies. One of the proposed users is the Police Department Emergency Services, and
potentially cellular carriers and PCS carriers, possibly even people who require the use of
microwave antennas. Previously, all of these different carriers tried to install these antennas with
individual approvals. You will actually find many of these antennas installed without permits
around town. Matthews does represent many different wireless carriers. Having a facility like
this makes it very easy for a carrier to legally install antennas. It provides a place for them to go.
Typically with Diablo, our experience is that they provide a service at a pretty competitive rate,
so people will choose to go there rather than having an illegal service or going through the permit
process themselves. So it does ultimately result in the consolidation of antennas.
What this proposal will do is to provide a location where all of the designs are coordinated,
specifically, the 32 whip antennas that are proposed, the 12 panel antennas, and the four
microwave antennas. A lot of this at this point is speculation on what the market will require.
We looked at the number of panel antennas, and we determined that additional panel antennas
were necessary to provide for the potential demand for the PCS users, in particular. That is why
we came up with the figure of 12, ~vhich allows two three-sector sites. PCS requires an antenna
to send and an antenna to receive, so there are two antennas per sector. So a three-sector site is
typical to achieve a 360-degree coverage would require six antennas. Since it is a very good site,
we have asked for 12 antennas to accommodate two different users.
As Jayni mentioned, ANSI requires that there be a foot-and-a-half of clearance above a six-foot
tall person’s head so that they do not walk back and forth within the communication of the
antenna. That is why the base of the antenna needs to be eight-and-a-half feet above any surface
where there is human activity. There is not going to be a lot of people on the roof of that
building, but there are maintenance people and there are others who circulate there, so we felt it
would be better to absolutely comply with that standard, get it up above, and then there would
never be any problem.
In looking at what PCS users are currently looking at, typically they are looking at a six-foot-tall
antenna that is about six to eight inches wide. Our request is for up to two feet wide, because
there may be some variation in the type of antenna used. Not all PCS users may ultimately use a
six-foot pole antenna. I do not feel that in any instance will there ever be a two-foot-wide by six-
foot-tall antenna. We are just trying to provide a little more flexibility, given that these will be
mounted to the parapet w.all.
7.5-96
KITIPCMINS 1996-3[A:\ 101ALMA.ARB
96-ARB-61
3
In this particular case, what ,... have tried to show is various views of building and where
there will be visibility of antennas. It is somewhat interesting, in looking at this view taken very
close by on Palo Alto Avenue, that you can see this feature, which is around a cooling tower up
there, and this is made of corrugated metal. It is actually a different material from the rest of the
mechanical house up there, but from a distance, you cannot tell the difference between the
materials. The reason I point that out is that we feel that as the antennas are placed on the
mechanical house up there and pa!n.ted to match, you will not see a difference at all. Your eye
will not read a difference between whether there are antennas there or not. In terms of any
additions to the parapet, we will absolutely paint to match the building. If we cannot paint to
match the building exactly for the antenna~ and for the extension, we will go ahead and repaint
the whole thing so that there are not any stripes up there. We want it to blend. We want it to
look good. We want everyone to be happy with it.
I do want to call your attention that this is very difficult to see. There are examples of whips here
in these pictures. You can see them somewhat in this picture, but in this other picture, they
completely wash out. You can see this one pretty clearly against the blue sky, but this is not a
correct location. That was installed there because we could not yet mount it on the building.
There is going to be a structure that holds all of these which will be in the center of the building,
and we did not want to penetrate the roof without approval. So it is mounted on the wail.
Mr. Peterson: So that is an example of what will be up there?
Mr. Ford: Yes, it is. You can see, as you get back, that the cloud cover actually helps our
argument. You really cannot see them from a distance. They get pretty small. We can paint
them whatever color is preferred to screen them to the extent possible. They do not have to be
white. The Planning Commission had a concern with their being all different heights. We are
perfectly willing to make them all a common height. That may involve putting a tube in for each
one so that they end up looking the same height. The actual antenna may not be the same height,
but we will put something on it and just give them all a common height.
Ms. Maser: Do you mean like a sleeve? (Yes) Which would fatten them all. We do not really
know what that would look like.
Mr. Ford: That is true, or we can just putan extension on them. Sometimes what they try to do
is that maybe one carrier would want three different antennas. They .may want to receive at six
feet and send at 12 feet. Their antennas operate a little differently, so we would just add onto
their height. Your point is very well taken. We should not increase the thickness of them. Right
now, you can see that at their current thickness, they are hard to see. Adding more girth to them
would make them more visible, so we would not add to their width.
Another thing I would like to point out is that in these pictures, you can see that they are located
on the ends and actually on the wrong side of the building. We would move them to the other
side of the building away from the residents, and also, they will be located in the center. There
are actually three antennas up there, one in the center and one on each end of the mechanical
house. These will all be located more toward the center and away from the residential area. If
you look very clos.ely in this view, you can see them, but from a distance you would not see them
very much, and you would not see the panels.
7.5-96
KITIPCMINS 1996-3[A:\101ALMA.ARB
96-ARB-61
4
One of the things we have nd since our last letter to Jayni is that :_~.~re is an extreme demand
for the PCS antennas. We requested 12 panel antennas, and they are probably more important to
us than even the microwave antennas are. That completes my presentation.
~: We will have questions from the board, followed by public comment.
Mr. Ross: Where would you put the additional four panel antennas? I see the eight that are
showing in a roof plan.
Mr. Ford: Realistically, what will happen there is, where the microwave dishes are shown, that is
probably a better location for a set of panel antennas. The microwave dishes, with the increased
height of the parapet, are better placed at the corner where the panel antennas are actually shown.
Mr.Ross: So the dish antennas would be where?
Mr.Ford: Probably to the right.
Mr.Ross: And typically, these panel antennas would be installed in pairs? (Yes)
Mr. Ford: The difficult thing about saying absolutely where they will go at this point is that it
really will depend upon the wireless provider’s design in terms of what coverage they are trying
to get. They are trying to go up and catch a certain number of.degrees. They may have good
coverage coming in from the west and may not be as concerned with that because they already
have the coverage at another facility. They may just be trying to get the other 270-degrees
around that. So it is very difficult at this time. You did notice in the staff report that there was
some concern. If that is a concern to the board, one of the things I think we would ask for is
maybe a condition that limits the number of antennas on an elevation to four. That should give
us plenty of flexibility and still provide a limit on the number of antennas on this elevation.
Mr. Ross: Is it your sense that they can be made somewhat symmetrical, even with the differing
requirements of the providers? I would be concemed about random placement along one
elevation, some in the middle, some at an end.
Mr. Ford: Yes. The biggest concern is thai they need to have a separation of approximately
eight feet. Other than that, they can be located on the wall, and even one provider could take the
north end of the building, and the other provider the south end of the building at one building
elevation. From that, if they were trying to go southwest or southeast, they could just orient their
antennas and direct them that way. That is what panel antennas are very good at. They can be
directed to various locations.
Ms. Maser: I would like to go back to Bob’s original concern. Do you have any details on these
antennas and how they look in detail, particularly with the panel antennas? Can you really paint
the whole thing?
Mr. Ford: Let me try to describe them. A typical panel antenna for a PCS is about six feet tall.
The maximum height is six feet. They are typically six inches wide. In fact, on the Pacific Bell
building downtown, there are PCS panel antennas located on that building.
7.,5-96
KITIPCMINS 1996-31A:\101ALMA.ARB
96-ARB-61
5
Ms. Ma~er: I do not believe v,e reviewed those.
~: I think We reviewed some on top of the 200 Sheridan building. .
Ms. Maser: What is the material that they are made of?.
Mr. Ford: The surface is a plastic.type material.
Mr. Peterson: Is it a fiat panel, like a board?
Mr. Ford: No. This picture shows one type of antenna. It is about six feet tall and about six
inches wide. They are made of a molded plastic and typically have a metal backing. They have
U-clamps on the back where they come out, and there is a bracket on the wall and a bracket on
the back of the antenna. They mount on and are usually tilted a little to give a beam direction.
Mr. Peterson: They are six.inches wide, and how deep?
Mr. Ford: Anywhere from two to four inches, with a uniform surface.
Ms. Maser: The painting of them does not destroy their transmission abilities?
Mr. Ford: No, it does not.
.Ms. Maser: That surprises me. I think of it as acoustical material and filling up little pores.
Mr. Ford: Actually, they are not porous at all. The surface is very hard, just like molded plastic.
Mr. Peterson: That is the panel antenna. How about the others?
Mr. Ford: Typically, the ~vidths of the whip antennas are up to about two inches in diameter. In
appearance, they are like a two-inch PVC, like a pipe.
Ms. Maser: If you were to extend those, what would that joint be like? If you did not increase
the diameter but just extended some so that they are all of uniform height, how would you do
that?
Mr. Ford: I would see its being done with just a very small sleeve, just like you would join PVC
pipe. There would be two ends with a sleeve going over the ends, and go straight up. There.
would be some irregularity in that.
Ms. Maser: Could you do it from the inside?
Mr. Ford: You may be able to. We could explore that if it were a consensus of the commission.
We would certainly explore doing that, and would be happy to accept that as a condition.
~_L.~_c_terson: So you do not see a big problem in making them all of a uniform height?
7,5-96
KIT~PCMINS 1996-31A:\ 101ALM,~.ARB
96-ARB-61
6
l~_.r_~_9_~: No, not at all.
Mr. Peterson: Ar;d how tall are those?
Mr. Ford: We are requesting up to 15 feet. We may end of with a uniform height of 12 feet
above the parapet. Actually 13-1/2 £eet with the increase in the parapet.
Mr.Peterson: So you are raising the parapet.
Mr.Ford: We are raising the parapet a foot-and-a-half to accommodate the panel antennas.
Ms.Maser: The elevation of the whips will remain the same as originally proposed?
Mr.Ford: Yes.
Ms. Maser: I would like to know a little more about how these roof antennas are anchored so
that they are all true to each other and are not going to look cattywumpus and look messy and out
of kilt with each other. How is that accomplished?
Mr. Ford: There will be a rack that is mounted on the roof. I would like to compare it to perhaps
like a shoe rack where the wires come up and go over and then it has the little things you put
your shoes on. Each antenna will come up offthat. There will be two rows of antennas going
across the top.
Ms. Maser: So they are attached in two locations. I just waiat to make sure they are stable and
true to each other.
Mr. Ford: Yes, they will be stable, and they will be true. I know this is not necessarily
something you can control, but I hope this gives you some sense of comfort. Antennas need to
be very stable. They cannot be moving around. That would interfere with the signal. They also
need to be stable because if they move, they come into too close proximity with each other. That
would also interfere with the signal. So they need to be very precisely located, and they need to
be very stable. Otherwise, their operation will be compromised, and that would create problems
for Diablo. They will be installed very secure and stable.
Ms. Maser: Is there any possibility you can install all of these antennas and just not activate the
ones you do not currently need, so that we can have some control over their placement?
Mr. Ford: I believe that is possible, but the constraint with doing that is that different users will
require different antennas. While the antennas will look the same from the outside, they will
function differently. We cannot project what all 32 antennas would be.
Ms. Maser: You mean they will be different from each other?
Mr Ford: Intemally, they will be different, because different paging companies will have
antennas that function differently.
7.5-96
KITIPCMINS 1996-31A:\101ALMA..ARB
96-ARB-61
7
Ms.Maser: Will they 1oo~, .~lfferent?
Mr.Ford: No, they will not.
Ms.Maser: They will all be within the same two-inch sleeve?
Mr.Ford: Right. It is just that the.y segregate what happens within the antenna.
Ms. Maser: Could you put up these sleeves without anything inside, just to get that pattern set in
the beginning, and then just mount them, insert the antenna, and put it back on the rack?
Mr. Ford: Yes, that is something we can do, yes.
Ms. Maser: That would give me a lot of comfort. I do not want these things to go up in a
haphazard way. I ~vould rather see them all go up and have the same impact visually as the
project moves along.
Mr.Peterson: Are those the two types we will see? The panel antennas and the whip antennas?
Ms.Maser: There are four microwave dishes, too.
Mr.Peterson: How large are the dishes? -"
Mr.Ford: The dishes are four feet in diameter.
Ms.Maser: Prod they can be painted, too?
Mr.Ford: Yes, they can also be painted.
Ms. Allsep: Both the dishes and the panels are going to be flush mounted against the wall. The
whips will be the only ones that extend above the parapet wall.
Ms. Maser: Let us go to the public now.
Fred Eyerly, 101 Alma Street, Palo Alto: I am president of the Palo Alto Condominium Owners
Association of 101 Alma Street. I want to make a few remarks on behalf of the Board of
Directors. We support this project unanimously. I would like to give you a little background,
but before I do that, I would say that if you have not lived in a c~ndominium, you need to realize
that 101 Alma is like a little Palo Alto. We have procedures; we have positions on projects that
’come along, and the Murphys are not on the same side as the board, I believe.
The process, in our condominium, runs like this. We take minutes on all actions by the Board of
Directors. We meet in the open. Minutes are available to all residents. We post agendas.
Backup materials are available at the office. We have an architectural control committee that
addresses certain projects. It addressed this project. We started on this project last September.
The minutes will show that we have had five discussions on it. We have had no resistance from
the membership. Now that the application has been made by Diablo Communications, we do
7-5-96 96-ARB-61
KITIPCMINS 1996-31A:\101ALMA.ARB ,..-8
have some adversarial positt~._.s developing. The board feels that this r, roject will have minimum
impact on the residents of the condominium, also minimum impact on the nearby residents. You
had two people who spoke with concerns at the Planning Commission. We feel that the contract
with Diablo would be quite beneficial to the residents of Palo Alto. We signed the contract with
Diablo about two months ago, and the contract gi~ es us ample protection. Th,~re have been two
boards of directors involved in this over the period of time we have discussed it. We feel the
contract is a good one. We are happy that it is going forward. We are pleased that the city goes
through a stringent review of a project like this. We see from the Planning Commission minutes
that certain contingencies have been enacted which would be helpful to the neighborhood and to
our residents nearby in Palo Alto. I am sure that when you people decide upon this, if you give
approval and pass it on, it will be the same way. So we appreciate your efforts and the efforts of
the city.
Dan Murphy, 101 Alma Street, Palo Alto: I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to
you regarding this change in the zoning in Palo Alto, particularly 101 Alma Street. I have lived
in Palo Alto for a halfa century, and have, as most of my Palo Alto friends, relied upon the City
of Palo Alto Board to oversee all architecturally related proposals that are presented and to
protect property owners from detrimental eyesores. You have fulfilled that duty very well. I and
numerous other owners’at 101 Alma ask for your confirmation of this belief of the Palo Alto
property owners throughout the city, particularly the Palo Alto condominium property owners.
This is a proposal to put up a 232-foot long fence around the top of our 101 Alma Street family
residences. They do not tell us what that fence is going to be made of. They call it a screen. Is it
expanded metal? Is it corrugated metal? Is it chicken wire? What is it? We don’t know. It is
only put there to say that they have increased the height of the parapet wall. That is not a parapet
wall when you put a fence on top of a parapet wall. Then they want to put 44 antennas on the
exposed surface of the building, not concealed. They say the fence is going to conceal it. It is a
shield. It does not conceal it. They are going to put up 32 whip antennas. As you certainly
recognize, that is a row of 32 poles sticking up from the roof of our building. They are 15 feet
tall. As a comparison, that is almost as tall as two floors of a building sitting on top of our roof.
It is also like 16 football goal posts lined up on our roof. It is a sad situation when we have the
appearance of our building and the appearance of our city damaged by a flock of poles sticking
up from one of our prestigious buildings. Then they plan, and hope to add more on the building.
If they get your architectural approval on this, they will continue to add to the quantity that is
there. We do not need a growing business on the residential building we call our home. We ask
your help in not letting that occur. There are numerous discrepancies in the application. The
dish antennas were originally located in specific areas on the drawings. Now they Can move
them around anywhere they want. That is like signing a blank check. Also, the eight panel
antennas have been increased to twelve. Their size increased 300%. They increased from four
square feet for each one to twelve square feet as an acceptable panel. It is suggested that the
parapet will conceal the panels. This is not possible. The antennas are on the outside of any
parapet or any extension of that parapet. As for painting the antennas the same color as the
building they a~e mounted on, they are mounted with brackets, and shadows know no colors. If
you get a shadow from an antenna, it is going to be a dark shadow, no matter what color it is
painted. We respectfully ask your aid in opposing this high level disfigurement of our building
and a high level disfigurement of your city by postponing your action on this matter until a later
meeting.
7-’5-96
KITIPCMINS 1996-31A:\101ALM~.ARB
96-ARB-61
9
Ms. Maser: Mr. Murphy, it ~ my understanding that the antennas ar~, Jt going to be mounted
on the outside of the parapet. They are mounted on a rack behind the parapet.
Mr. Murphy: Thank you for asking! Here is an enlarged portion of the blueprints that you have.
This red outline is where they are going to put the fence all around that level.
Ms.Maser: Isn’t that just an extension of your penthouse, made of the same material?
Mr.Murp__h_y_h: No, it is not. It is a fence.
Ms.Maser: That is not the way it was characterized, but maybe we can get clarification.
Mr.Murphy: Is the fence expanded metal? Itis a shield.
Ms. Maser: My understanding is that it is exactly the same stucco material of the penthouse,
only they are raising it so that it will be indistinguishable from what is there, but just a foot-and-
a-half higher.
Mr.Murphy: It shows on the drawing that it is --
Ms.Maser: We will get some clarification of that.
Mr.Murphy: Now, here are the whip antennas that are going up. These are the dish antennas.
Ms. Maser: The whip antennas are behind the parapet. They go down behind the parapet into a
rack.
Mr. Murphy: Yes, they go into a rack, but that whole distance you are talking about is something
like three feet of the total parapet. The parapet is actually 15 feet above the highest level of that
addition to the parapet.
Ms. Maser: From what you said in your letter, I sensed that you thought these were going to be
mounted on the outside of the parapet.
Mr. Murphy: The whip antennas are not, but all of these dish antennas and all of the panels are
going to be on the outside. We don’t know where they are going to be now. The shadow from
these are going to strike, no matter what you have on it. On this building, this will occur on all
sides of the building, the front, the back and both sides.
Eloise Murphy, 101 Alma Street, Palo Alto: I wish to read a letter from a resident who cannot be
here today. (Ms. Maser reads the letter) From Larry MacDonald. "I have owned a
condominium unit at 101 Alma Street for 22 years and have formerly been a member of its board
of directors, and otherwise active as a volunteer in its govemance. I would like to make three
points in connection with the matter before you today. First, the application was filed on March
25th and contained frequent references to the fact that all of the many antennas to be installed
would be hidden from view. Last week, three months after filing the application, the applicant
filed an amendment by which they would add four more antennas and place them and other
7.5-96
KIT[PCMINS 1996-3[A:\ 101ALM,~..ARB
96-ARB-61
10
equipment in a much more ~ible pattern. I do not know whether yod, board members, your
staff or the planning committee staff have had a chance to analyze the visual impact of these
changes. Should ~his be the case, I respectfully suggest that this project be tabled pending further
study.
My second point has to do with erroneous statements made in the original filing. If you have a
copy of the one-page cover, I would direct your attention to Box #5. You will note that the
signature is that of Michael O’Quinn, who makes two claims. One is that he owns the entire
building at 101 Alma Street and that he has.posted $6,000 to cover fees which might be charged
by the City of Palo Alto. Neither statemerit is correct. He does not own the entire building, not
even one of the 100 units, and he has not posted money to cover fees. He happens to be an
employee of the condominium association.
My third point is this. While your charter of responsibilities relates largely to controlling
building appearances, and generally, you would have little interest in the govemance of a
structure, I believe you should be aware that a number of us owners are attempting to learn more
about the effects that this project will have on our lifestyle and property value. Thus far, there
has been a dearth of pertinent information from the association’s board and from the entrepreneur
involved. Therefore, I respectfully request that the matter before you be postponed to a future
hearing."
Ms. Maser: I am wondering, John, if you would like to respond to .anything that has been
brought up today.
Mr. Ford: Yes, I would. First, on the question of the parapet. Our envisioning of the one-and-a-
half-foot extension would not be to open up and extend the wall, but would be to extend the wall
in a way that it would be indistinguishable from the street level in terms of color and texture.
That can be done in several ways. If it requires a boxed out stucco type of construction at the
top, that can be done. Probably the easiest way to do it would be to do some kind of metal
extension and treat the surface of that extension and paint it to match so that from the street, it
would be essentially the same material, the same color, the same appearance. I want. to reiterate
one point. We do want it to look the same. We do not want to throw some metal flashing up
there and call it good. It would match in terms of appearance. In terms of discrepancies in the
application, the microwave and the .panels have always been proposed to be mounted to the
surface of either the main mechanical building or to the screens that go around the cooling towers
on the ends. We have reqfiested modifications to the number of panels, because in further
analyzing the initial request, which was for eight antennas, we determined that that was
insufficient to meet the needs of prospective carriers. One of the things we want to reiterate, or
even step back and say, from a Matthews Land Company standpoint, in looking at this, this is a
very good site that Diablo has gotten involved with. It would behoove everyone to take a look at
what the real use of the site can be, and to permit it for something that’is very reasonable. To
make provisions to have two carriers up there rather than having one carrier and then try to come
back in the future and modify it because another carrier wants to go up there, or send a future
carrier to another location, would be counterproductive. So we tried to take a look at what the
real use of the site can be and try to request the number of antennas appropriate for that.
7.5-96
KIT[PCMINS 1996-31A:\101ALM,i~.ARB
96-ARB-61
11
We are requesting flexibility m the location of the microwaves and ta. panels. That is primarily
the result of the need to accommodate future providers. We do not know what sectors they will
be trying to cover. In our mind, the issue remains one of how are they are going to be screened.
Regardless of location, they are still going to be screened the same way. They are still going to
be painted out.. They are still going to be flush-mounted against the wall.
That brings up the other point abqut shadows and whether or not the shadow lines would create
an adverse impact. There may be some shadow lines, yes, because they will not be integrated
into the surface of the mechanical house, but from 13 or 14 stories down and however far away,
whether or not a two- or three-inch shadow would be even distinguishable enough to create an
adverse impact, we do not feel it would. We feel it would be indistinguishable and the panel will
blend into the wall.
In regard to the signature on the application, Michael O’Quinn is the general manager for the
condominium homeowriers association at 101 Alma Street, and I believe he is in charge of what
happens at the building, and I believe he is entitled to sign that application. You could probably
talk to Mr. Eyerly, the board president, to determine whether or not he has that authority. The
city accepted the application with the fees, so I do believe all of that has been taken care of.
Ms. Maser: Thank you. I have one short question for you. Is there any possibility that these
panels and dish antennas could be mounted to the inside of the parapet wall, rather than the
outside? -"
Mr. Ford: There are ways to do that. It ~vould require a lot more work. It would require opening
up the parapet wall, putting in an opaque wall, and then reconstructing it.
Ms. Maser: An opaque matdrial?
Mr. Ford: Yes. The panels ~vill read through like a plexiglass material, so an obscure material is
needed. That has been done in some areas where portions of the building had been removed. An
obscure material is replaced there, and it is painted to match the rest of the building. That is
possible, but it is expensive. The reason we did not propose it for this particular application is
because we feel that, given the height of the building and the angles and the distances from
which this would be visible, they are just not going to be that visible.
Mr. Ross: From staff’s point of view, is this a legal application? This is an ownership entity.
.Ms. Grote: As long as that owner has a designated representative that can sign, yes, it is a legal
application.
Ms. Maser: Let us now have board comments.
Mr. Peterson: We have discussed antennas on a number of buildings before. One of the things
we discussed was a way to have a master plan presentation or coordination for each of these
sites. It seems to me ~hat what we are seeing here today is exactly that. We are getting a
7-5-96
KITIPCMINS 1996-31A:\ 101ALM,~,.ARB
96-ARB-61
12
p~oposal that addresses thred ,fferent kinds of antennas and does anti,:.pate future uses. So I am
happy to see this application, and I am happy to see it done in the way that it is being done. I
think it addresses the issue we are concerned about, that is, repeated miscellaneous, different
sizes and shapes of antennas coming up. I feel that this does solve that problem.
For me, I think it is a question of appearance. I believe that we have two elements here that are
not solved. One is uniformity in h.eight, and one is uniformity of color. I believe that the
presentation, with the suggestions we have made, addresses those issues. Based on that, I am in
support of this proposal.
Mr. Ross: The only thing I have to add to Bob’s comments is that I think the most visible type of
antenna, the panels and the microwave antennas, are going to be the least visible because of the
sight lines of the building and the distance required to actually see where they are mounted. If
you are at Stanford Shopping Center, you may be able to see them, but at that distance, they are
going to be quite tiny. Anywhere closer to the building, and they are going to be mainly
obscured by the sight lines of the top of the main structure. So I am in agreement with Bob. We
have asked for a master antenna program for this very reason so that we do not see repeated
applications from individual operators with different types of antennas. So this is a good
application from that point of view, and I support it.
Ms. Maser: I would like to ask both of you what colors you would suggest for the panel
antennas and for the dish antennas and the whip antennas. -"
Mr. Peterson: I think the panels should be the same color as the parapet color, whatever that
might be.
Ms.Maser: And the ~vhip antennas?
Mr.Peterson: Probably light gray-blue.
Mr.Ross: Yes, light grayish blue. I am sure there have been studies published on the topic.
Ms. Maser: Is the one that is there now ~vhite, John.’? (Yes) To me, it is almost indistinguishable
from a distance.
Mr. Peterson: If it had a little color added, my guess is that it would disappear completely.
Mr. Ross: I am sure there have been some studies published by the air force as to what
disappears best against the sky. I would have to guess that it is some very light grayish blue.
Whatever it is, I don’t care too much about the color, as long as it disappears.
Ms. M.aser: I am in agreement ~vith that. It has been very hard to see all of these antennas on
buildings all over town. It is serving a very important purpose in modem communications, and it
is something that we are learning to live with. Hopefully, as stated in the Planning Commission
meeting, as technology improves, all of these devices will begin to shrink. Hopefully, in 25
years, the technology will be such that we can dispense with a lot of these, and it will be handled
in a different manner. However, I think that if all of these antennas are installed with care so that
7.5-96
KITIPCMINS 1996-3[A:\101ALMN.ARB
96-ARB-61
13
they are true to each oth, .nd are vertical and installed in a reguk . attern, it is not going to be a
disfigurement to this building. Certainly, when you look at the building and there is a Christmas
tree up there, there is already some adornment, so I feel that if it is done properly and
symmetrically and with good true construction, it will not be a disfigurement. It will be virtually
invisible from most vantage points. It is a necessary component of our modern way of
communicating, both for emergency situations and for regular communication.
MOTION: Ms.. Maser: I would l{i~e to make a motion to approve this, with some assurance that
we are going to get something that is installed ~vith the whip antennas at the same height and
with some kind of regular, organized way 6f installing the panel and dish antennas. You
apparently do not need them all at once, and you do not want to install all of them at the
beginning. You have suggested that you would be willing to install the sleeves for the whip
antennas all at the same time and all at the initial installation, however, I did not get the sense
that you wanted to do that with the panel antennas and the dish antennas. I wondered if you have
any suggestions as to how we could go about this so that these are not installed in a haphazard
way, but with some sense of organization about the way they are installed. Is there a way of
working with staff as you phase in these panel and dish antennas to get some kind of installation
that makes some visual sense?
Mr. Ford: I can attempt to address the antenna pipes into the equipment structure, starting with
the whips. We will need to get a building permit for all of these, so there will be a staff level
review at this point. When we come in with the whips to install the support structure, we will
come in and install sleeves for all of them right up front. I think that will take care of your
concern. In the future, we do not know where the carriers will want the panels. We have tried to
create criteria so that they will be screened, regardless, of where they are placed. Again, we go to
permits to mount onto the wall, so again, staff will be involved with the review of that. If it
would please the board to have a condition to limit the number of antennas to, say, four per side,
that is something we could do. If it would please the board to have them mounted in pairs or in a
vertical alignment, those are things that will be done anyway, and they will be painted out to
match the rest of the mechanical screen. So we will be more than happy to work with staff.
Actually, ,,ve will be working with staff. We would like to preserve flexibility in terms of
location.
Ms. Maser,: I just don’t want to see all of them mounted on the one side, for instance, the most
visible side. If we can leave it up to staff, as you go along, we can leave it up to their discretion.
They have heard this conversation and they know what our concerns are. If they have some
misgivings about what you are proposing, hopefully, we can put in a condition that they come
back to us for a review. The other thing I want to include in the motion is for a detail of how you
plan to raise this parapet to be submitted to stafffor approval. I am not sure that you even know
yet what the details are. I think it is an important thing for the building owners and for the
community to know that it is going to be done in a proper way and with as minimal discord
between those two materials as possible.
Mr. Ford: We would be in full agreement with that.
Mr. Roses: Are we going to limit them to four per side?
7.5 -96
KITIPCM1NS 1996-31A:\101ALMA.ARB
96-ARB-61
14
Ms. Maser: No, I am not so. ~[lg they should be limited. I just want g~aff review as they start to
determine the locations, so that they do not end up with everything on one side or everything in
one comer. Just so there is some logic to the order in which they are putting these things and that
everything should be aligned. It should work with the vertical joints of the parapet.
~: I also have noted down that you do want the panels and the dishes to be the same
color as the parapet, and the whips. .to be either a light grayish blue or some other color that will
virtually disappear, and the detail of the parapet extension is to be submitted to staff.
SECOND: By Mr. Peterson.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Maser: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those
in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously.
Thank you for coming, and good luck.
7.5-96
KIT]PCMINS 1996-31A:\ 101ALM,~..ARB
96-ARB-61
15
Ms. Jayni Allsep
Project Planner
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
PC Zone Change for 101 Alma Street
Modification of Application
File Nos: 96-ZC-8 and 96-EIA-I3
4 m+k+t’+
RECE~v,D
JUbt 2 71996
5’a~’-’:~r,’.,, +; ,..+;.:ni,+,L~ end
June 26, 1996
Dear Jayni:
I request that the application for an amendment to the PC Zone at 101 Alma Street be
modified. In further review of the application we have d~termined that the number, size
and location of the requested panel antennas will not be sufficient to accommodate the
intended users.
Diablo Communications Inc. expects the panel antenna facilities to be leased by PCS
carriers. Our experience is that PCS carriers are using panel antennas that are up to six
feet tall and typically six inches wide. For this reason, we request that the application be
amended to allow panel antennas up to six feet tall.
PCS sites are usually divided into sectors. A site may serve one, two or three sectors.
Each sector typically has two antennas (one to receive and one to transmit.) The sUbject
location is a good three sector site. A PCS carrier would require six antennas at this
location. Since this is a good site, it would be desirable to make provisions to
accommodate two PCS carriers. This would require twelve (12) antennas. We request"
that the application be amended to allow twelve (12) rather than eight (8) panel antennas.
In issuing licenses for PCS carriers, the FCC has adopted the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for the placement of the antennas. PCS antennas
should be placed 8.5 feet above any surface which supports public activity. Thus, in
order to accommodate a six foot (6’) tall antenna the supporting ~vall should be 14.5 feet
tall. The walls on which the antennas are currently proposed are 9.5 feet tall. For this
reason we would like to move the panel antennas to the wall of the mechanical house
structure. This wall is thirteen feet (I3’) tall. In order to prevent the antennas from
protruding above the top of the wall we would propose to add a foot and a half (1.5’) to
the top of the wall to make the wall 14.5’.
5619 Scotts Valley Drive, Suite 200 ¯Scotts Valley, California 95066 ¯FAX (408) 438-4311 ¯408/438-9500
Diablo Communications In
Letter to Jayni Allsep
Modification to PC Zone Amendment
101 Alma Street
June 26, 1996
Future PCS providers will want flexibility in placing the antennas on this building to
accommodate the design of their network. For this reason we would like the zone to
provide the flexibility to allow panel antennas to be placed anywhere on the mechanical
house, provided that the antennas are wall mounted, that the antennas do not protrude
above the top of the parapet and that the antennas are painted to match the mechanical
house structure. This may also result in the relocation of the microwave antennas. We
request the same criteria be applied to the microwave antennas, rather than requiring that
they be limited to certain locations.
These changes can be addressed by modifying the permitted uses contained in the
proposed Zoning provisions as follows:
Whip Type Antennas (32) Add: All whipantennas shall be of a uniform height.
Panel Antennas (12) A total of twelve (12) panel antennas are proposed. The panels
may vary in size and shape, but shall not be more than two feet (2’) wide and six feet
(6’) high. Panel antennas shall be located on the mechanical house structure. The
highest point of the antenna is to be flush with the top of the mechanical house
parapet wall. All panel antennas shall be painted to match the color of the mechanical
house. The mechanical house parapet wall may be increased by one and a half feet
(1.5’) in order to keep the antenna flush with the top of the parapet wall.
Microwave Dish Antennas (4) A total of four (4) microwave dish antennas are
proposed to be mounted on the wall of the existing mechanical house structure. The
dish antennas are proposed to be a maximum of four feet (4’) in diameter. The highest
point of the antenna is to be flush with the top of the mechanical house parapet wall.
All microwave antennas shall be painted to match the color of the mechanical house.
These are the extent of the changes we believe are necessary to make this a desirable site
to a prospective PCS carrier. Thank you for your help in this matter. If you have any ¯
questions or need additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
H. Ford
Land Use Planner
cc: Michele McCarthy, Diablo Communications Inc.
Ms. Jayni Allsep
Project Planner
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Deparh~,.
Conlrnun~ty ~nvim~r~c,,
PC Zone Change for 101 Alma Street
Modification of Application
File Nos: 96-ZC-8 and 96-EIA-13
August 19, 1996
Dear Jayni:
This letter is written to summarize the status of each of the issues or questions which have been raised
in the review of the application for a zone change at 101 Alma street. Each issue is addressed topically
.3as follows:
Public Benefit
Diablo has agreed to provide the City with an antenna mount’ and space for transmitting equipment.
The City would be responsible for utility costs. A letter to Tom Laye, from Diablo Communications,
confirming this is attached.
Antenna Location and Design
The following description includes changes in the number and location of antennas, as requested by
Diablo Communications and the design changes required by the Design Review Board.
Whip Type Antennas (32) A total of 32 whip antennas mounted to a "Kruse" structure located
along and inside of the east parapet wall of the mechanical penthouse. All whip antennas shall be
mounted such that the tops of the antennas are at a uniform height. The height of the antennas will
not exceed 155’ 6". Any exposed antenna mounting devices will appear to be an extension of the
antenna. The diameter of the antennas may vary, but the maximum diameter will be 4 inches. The
color of the whip antennas shall be selected to minimize the visibility of the antennas, subject to
review and approval of the Planning Staff
Panel Antennas (12) A total of twelve (12) panel antennas are proposed. The panels may vary in
size and shape, but shall not be more than two feet (2’) wide and six feet (6’) high. Panel antennas
shall be located on the mechanical house structure. The highest point of the antenna will be flush
with the top of the mechanical house parapet wall. All panel antennas shall be painted to match the
5619 Scotts Valley Drive, Suite 200 o Scotts Valley, California 95066 ¯FAX (408) 438-431 .~:~ ¯408 / 438-9500
Diablo Communications Inc.
Letter to Jayni Allsep
Summary of PC Zone Amendment
101 Alma Street
,August 19, 1996
color of the mechanical house. The mechanical house parapet wall may be increased by one and a
half feet (1.5 ’) in order to keep the antenna flush with the top of the parapet wall.
Micrmvave Dish Antennas (4) A total of four (4) microwave dish antennas are proposed to be
mounted on the wall of the existing mechanical house structure. The dish antennas are proposed to
be a maximum of four feet (4’) in diameter. The highest point of the antenna is to be flush with the
top of the mechanical house parapet wall. All microwave antennas shall be painted to match the
color of the mechanical house.
The project includes a request to allow an increase in the height of the parapet around the mechanical
penthouse. This will be accomplished such that the extension will appear, from the ground, to be
constructed of the same materials as the existing parapet.
Phasing
The phasing needs to be modified to reflect the conditions of the Design Review Board, and to address
the different installation requirements of the three antenna types. It is requested that the phasing be
defined by antdnna type, without any sequencing requirements. The installation of any antenna would
require installation of all improvements associated with that particular antenna type. The phasing of all
improvements for each of the antenna types would be as follows:
Whip Antennas: With the installation of the first whip antenna, either all 32 antennas or simulation
antennas will be installed. All antennas or simulations shall be painted as specified above.
Panel Antennas. The panel antennas may be installed individually, provided that the locations are
approved by the Planning Department. All antennas must be in place within seven years of the date
which this zone becomes effective. The mechanical parapet shall be extended with the installation
of the first panel antenna.
Dish Antennas The dish antennas may be installed individually, provided that the locations are
approved by the Planning Department. All antennas must be in place within seven years of the date
which ~his zone becomes effective. The mechanical parapet shall be extended with the installation
of the first Dish antenna
Thank you for your help in this matter.
please contact me.
Sincerely,
If you have any questions or need additional information,
John H. Ford
Senior Planner
CC:Michele McCarthy, Diablo Communications Inc.
2
D~ABLO C: o6~ ,x,~ u N ~ c Ar [ o N s.
1220 I~rickyard C~v~ Road, Suite 200. Point Richvnond. CA 94~,01Telephone (510) 236-3700 FAX ($10) 236-3799
August 15, 1996 g~/
Mr. Tom I.aye
Chief Communications Technician
City ofpalo Alto, Police Department
275 Forest Ave
l~alo Alto, CA 94301
PC Zone Change for 101 Alma Street
Modification of Application
File Nos: 96-ZC-8 and 96-EIA-13
Dear Mr. Laye:
This letter will confirm Diablo Communications offer to make space available to the city
for communications equipment in association with the application for a PC Zone at 101
Alma Street. Diablo agrees to the following:
Diablo Communications will allow the City of Palo Alto access to one antetina space
or access to one combined antenna scheme, subject to proper radio frequeaaey
engineering standards and installation techniques.
Diablo Communications will reserve space for City of Palo Alto tranmaissio,n
equipment. The size of this equipment is equivalent to an MSF 5000, Mieor’.or
similar equipmeat.
The City of Palo Alto will be responsible for the utility costs assoeiateA with their
equipment, prorated in accordance with its lectrical currtmt consumption. ’
I believe this addresses the City’s request. If’there is anything different than what has
been stated or if you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Sincerely,
G.G. Lindquist
CEO & President
~O’d 8SG996PS~O±WO~d 9~:~
HE PALO
THE PALO
A LTO
August 14, 1996
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, Ca. 94301
Dear Council Members:
ALTO CONDOMINIUM
I01 ALMA STREET
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301
OWN{RS’ ABSOCIATION
RECEIVED
Department o| plannir,? ~n-~
community Environmc’.
TELEPHONE
(415} 321-0100
We, the Board of Directors of The Palo Alto Condominium Owners Association, are responding to
the August 6th letter to the council signed by George Swarth and Lawrence McDonnell challenging
the legality of the Board’s signing a Communication Site Building Lease. The lease authorizes
Diablo Communications Inc. to apply for any and all governmental approvals, licenses, permits
etc. to install a wireless system for telecommunications purposes at 101 Alma Street. We believe
that letter is incorrect and has failed to consider all appropriate sections of our documents
(Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions and By-Laws), State Law and Palo Alto Municipal
Code.
Attached is an August 9 legal opinion from Kevin D. Frederick, PACOA Counsel, advising us that
we have acted within the powers and authority given the Board of Directors by our governing
documents.
Completion of the Diablo project will provide a very valuable income source for our owners and
will have very little impact on their life style.
Our condominium association is like city government in that all projects and issues have positive
and negative comments. The Board unanimously supports the Diablo project and urges your rapid
completion of the city process for approval.
Board of Directors
Rose Ca~|-Merle Events ,irt
¯Planning Commission
Architectural Review Board
Diablo Communications Inc.
KEVIN D. FREDERICK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
702 MARSHALL STREET, SUITE 620
~TJRDW’OOD C’rTy, C.A.L’rFO]:~N’r~. 940<3S-18~0
TELEPHONE: (415) 365-9800
FACSIMILE: (~,15) 365-980S
August 14, 1996
Board of Directors
Palo Alto Condominium Owners
Association
i01 Alma Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: DIABLO LEASE
Dear Board:
I have been asked to advise the Board whether or not it
acted within its powers under the charter documents and state law
with respect to execution of the Diablo Lease. I have reviewed
the letters of complaint issued by a few of your members. I have
also reviewed your charter documents and the lease. In my
opinion, the Board has acted within its powers and authority. I
base my opinion on your charter documents and state law.
One objection is that a vote of the members was not taken.
Although in the municipal model of governance, all powers rests
with the citizens unless it has been delegated to the governing
body, in the corporate model of governance, the situation is
reversed. CEB, Advisinq Calif. Condominium and Homeowners’
Assns. (1991) §2.28. Unless the articles of incorporation or
bylaws of the corporation or the California Nonprofit Corporation
Law reserve certain actions for membership approval, "the
activities and affairs of a corporation and all corporate powers
shall be exercised by or under the direction of the Board."
Corporations Code §7210. Bylaw Article VII, §i states that "It
shall be the duty of the Board, in accordance with the provisions
of the governing documents, to exercise the powers and duties of
the Association, control its properties and the common area under
its management, and conduct the affairs of the Association."
In your case, there is no requirement for membership
approval of a lease. The Diablo agreement is ’a lease whereunder
Diablo and their clients obtain the use of space on the roof in
exchange for money paid to the Association. CC&R §5.02(i) and
Article III(b) (6) of your Articles require a vote to "dedicate,
sell or transfer" the Common Area. As no title is being
conveyed, there is no sale or transfer. "Dedication" involves a
complex process of turning property over to a governmental
entity, which requires that an applicant satisfy the statutory
Page Two
August 14, 1996
Board of Directors
Palo Alto Condominium Owners Assn.
formalities of California Government Code ~7050. No dedication
has taken place. Nor is this a contract for "goods" (Commercial
Code ~2105, Civil Code §1761[a]) or "services" (Civil Code
§§1689.5[d] and 1761[b]) which would require a vote under Bylaw
Article VII, §3(a). Therefore, the Board has not acted in excess
of its authority under state law or the charter documents.
A second objection is that the Association had no power to
enter into the lease. The Association is specifically given the
power to lease under §5.02(g) of the CC&R’s which states that:
"The Association shall have the power to acquire (by gift,
purchase or otherwise) own, hold, improve, build upon, operate,
maintain, convey, sell, lease, transfer, dedicate for public use
or otherwise dispose of real or personal property in connection
with the affairs of the Association." Pursuant to CC&R §1.23, "
’property’ or ’properties’ means and includes the real property
shown on the map and all improvements erected thereon and all
property, real, personal or mixed intended for or used in
connection with the project." Therefore, the Association has the
power to lease portions of the Common Area, such as the rental
units and laundry rooms. It therefore has the power to lease
portions of the roof as well.
In addition, the Association’s action in applying for a
variance does not constitute an overstepping of their authority.
Palo Alto Municipal Code §18.90.020 states that variances may be
applied for by: "lessee[s] in possession of property", or "an
agent of the owner of record of property for which a variance is
sought..." Diablo qualifies as a lessee pursuant to the lease,
and the Association is the agent of the owners pursuant to
~3.02, 5.01(a) (i) and 5.02(g) of the CC&R’s and Bylaw Article
VII, Sect±on i.
It should also be noted that the contract has already been
signed on behalf of the Association and delivered to Diabloo
Diablo has already spent time and money on the project and
anticipates future profits. The Association cannot expect Diablo
to take a repudiation of the contract lightly.
If you have any further questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
KEVIN D. FREDERICK
KDF:dmh
opin96\pacondo.dia
ATTACHMENT #(
To: City’ of Palo Alto Planning Commission and The Palo Alto CityDe~artmer:~. ~ rl~nn~g and
As you probably’ know, The New }ork Times, L’,~.~ Angele.s 77n;es (4 articles), as
well as our San Francisco Chronicle have recently car,ied stories regarding widespread
questions mad concerns about installatio~ of digital wireless antennae on the roofs of
high-rise residential buildings. You join the dilemna of other city governing bodies by a
request to permit the Palo Alto Condominium Owners’ Association (PACOA) to lease
roof space to a communications company on the residential building at 101 Alma Street.
To do so would require not only’ increasing the height limit of the building but also
change the zoning -- with far-reaching implications.
There is sincere anxiety’ 011 the part of many PACOA homeowners about the
teclmical consequences, quality of life, long-range effects, impact on the physical
integrity of the structure, installation, logistics, ~nonitoring, emergency access, proprietary,
management, to nmne a few genuine concerns that at this time neither management,
leasing companies, architectural review co~nmittees, municipal governing bodies,
enviromnental protection agencies, American National Standard Institute (ANSI), Federal
Co~nmunications Commission, nor any other agency can verify.
I11 a short letter I cannot open all the shut doors for you to better unders’tand the
situation. Here are only a few:
1. Ours is a 1960’s building. We have in the past rejected efforts that ~night i~npact
physical integrity of the structure. The stUCCO wall of the mechanical room where it is
proposed to attach the heavier antmmae is but 1 inch thick! The roof itself already
supports all the building’s mechanical equipment (and off-limits to all but staff)
And the proposal is to install up to 48 dish-, panel- and whip-antennae up there.
2. To illustrate quality of life, we do not have a freight elevator. All ~noving trmasfers,
construction, maintenance occms on one of 2 passenger elevators. And tl~e roof is
accessible ONLY through the carpetted interior corridor of the top floor, past residential
units. We are not equipped for commercial activity. Further, 9wners purchased homes in
a "security building,"which is already in question during just fltis investigatory stage.
3. It has become an unfortunate divisive issue at 101 Alma Street, in danger of
damaging the fragile sense of co~mnunity among PACOA residents whose personal home
it is. Due to burgeoning technology we realize there is a delnand for roof tops, but why
not at commercial/industrial sites? 1/2
In spite of a City of P.A. architectural review, I hope the Planning Commission and
the Palo Alto City Council will take the judicious high road by voting against the project
at this time for re-examination and for the required vote by PACOA homeowners.
Please note: I was Vice-president of PACOA when the issue first came up about
antennae leasing. The Board of Directors asked reasonably intelligent questions based on
minimal printed material. Now that I have seen the 55-page packet of detai!s regarding
installation of more than 45 antennae on our roof, I am ashamed that I did ~ st request a
more thorough study before voting on the undertaking. I have requested that the PACOA
Bo~d suspend the antennae leasing project at this time for re-exmnination. I hope you
will prudently and courageously do the same.
27 August96 Sincerely,
Jane Strubbe
Ho~neowner of #604
Past Director of PACOA