Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-12-12 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: December 12, 2018 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1.Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2.PUBLIC HEARING / LEGISLATIVE. 3200 El Camino Real [17PLN-00156]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for a Site Specific Zone Amendment to Allow for the Elimination of a 50-Foot Special Setback on Hansen Way. This is in Conjunction with a Development Proposal for a New Hotel on the Site Through a Major Architectural Review. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From December 4, 2018 to January 3, 2019. Zoning District: Service Commercial (CS) For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2321 Wellesley Street [18PLN-00178]: Request for a Zoning Map Amendment to Change the Subject Property From R-1 to RMD(NP) to Construct a Two-Family Residence. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15303. Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residential). _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez (samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org) 4.PUBLIC HEARING. PTC Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Update the Code to Reflect Recently Adopted FCC Regulations. CEQA: This Ordinance is Exempt from Environmental Review Under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15305. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5.November 14, 2018 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Agenda Items Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: Chair Ed Lauing Vice Chair Susan Monk Commissioner Michael Alcheck Commissioner Przemek Gardias Commissioner William Riggs Commissioner Doria Summa Commissioner Asher Waldfogel Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 9658) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 12/12/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. Background This document includes the following items: • PTC Meeting Schedule • PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments) • Tentative Future Agenda Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes (Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi- judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. Attachments: • Attachment A: December 12, 2018 PTC Meeting Schedule and Assignments (DOCX) Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2018 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2018 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs, Waldfogel 1/17/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Special 1/31/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 3/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs 4/11/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/25/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Lauing, Riggs 5/09/2018 5/22/2018 6:00 PM 6:00 PM Council Chambers Council Chambers Regular Special Cancelled(Alcheck, Lauing, Monk, Riggs) Alcheck 5/30/2018 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular 6/13/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck, Riggs 6/27/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck 7/11/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 7/25/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Gardias, Riggs 8/08/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 8/29/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/12/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs, Waldfogel 9/26/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/10/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs 10/31/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 11/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 12/12/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/26/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers CANCELLED 2018 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Ed Lauing Susan Monk Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Przemek Gardias Susan Monk Ed Lauing Doria Summa July August September October November December Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Przemek Gardias Susan Monk Michael Alcheck Asher Waldfogel Billy Riggs Michael Alchek Asher Waldfogel Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Ed Lauing Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2018 Tentative Future Agenda December 6, 2018 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics January 16, 2019 • 1700 Embarcadero Mercedes/Audi January 30, 2019 • 470 Olive Non-conforming Use Exception Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 9815) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/12/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3200 El Camino Real: Parmani Hotel Title: PUBLIC HEARING / LEGISLATIVE. 3200 El Camino Real [17PLN- 00156]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for a Site Specific Zone Amendment to Allow for the Elimination of a 50- Foot Special Setback on Hansen Way. This is in Conjunction with a Development Proposal for a New Hotel on the Site Through a Major Architectural Review. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From December 4, 2018 to January 3, 2019. Zoning District: Service Commercial (CS). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action: 1. Recommend approval of the proposed setback map amendment to the City Council based on findings. Report Summary The 26,878 square foot subject property is located at the southwest corner of Hansen Way and El Camino Real, fronting on El Camino Real within the Commercial Service (CS) zoning district (See Attachment A). A 50-foot special setback exists along Hansen Way. There is an existing, low scale motel on the site that currently intrudes into the 50-foot special setback. The 50-foot special setback extends the full length of the property adjacent to Hansen Way and along all the other properties fronting on Hansen Way; it dates from the establishment of the Stanford Research Park and its annexation to the City. The property immediately adjacent to the subject site includes buildings that intrude into the special setback by about 14 feet. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The applicant proposes an amendment to the City’s special setback map to eliminate the 50- foot special setback for the subject property along Hansen Way, which the City is processing under its zoning amendment regulations. If the setback map amendment is granted, then the site would have a side setback requirement of zero feet, consistent with the underlying base district. However, the property line would remain 19 feet from the curb. The elimination of the special setback would allow for the accommodation of a concurrently submitted development application being reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board and City Council for a new four-story hotel. The report includes draft findings for consideration of the setback map amendment. The Commission’s recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration. The project also includes an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for consideration. Background Project Information Owner: Prabhu Corporation c/o Yatin Patel Architect: Architectural Dimensions Representative: James Heilbronner Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 3200 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Stanford Research Park area, adjacent to Ventura neighborhood Lot Dimensions & Area: 100’ x 258’-3” (26,878 square feet) Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Yes Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, Street Trees Historic Resource(s): Built in 1947, evaluation in process Existing Improvement(s): 16,603 sf; Two stories; 25 feet Existing Land Use(s): Motel Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CS (Commercial/Electronics Repair) West: RP (Research & Development) East: CS (Commercial/Fish Market Restaurant) South: RP (Offices) Special Setbacks: 50-feet along Hansen Way Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Digital Globe, US Geological Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency, Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: CS (Service Commercial) Comp. Plan Designation: CS (Service Commercial) Context-Based Design: Yes Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Yes Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: April 4, 2016 (Pre-screening): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51665 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 May 1, 2017 (Pre-screening): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57247 PTC: None HRB: None ARB: October 1, 2015 (Preliminary): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49220 June 15, 2017 (Preliminary): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=58266 October 4, 2018 (1st Formal): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=66965 Project Description The site consists of a single parcel totaling 26,878 square feet and is located on the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Hansen Way (see location map, Attachment A). The site has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Service Commercial and a zoning designation of CS Service Commercial. A 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way applies to this site. This special setback is also applicable to all properties along Hansen Way. The project includes a development proposal and a setback map amendment to eliminate the 50-foot special setback along the street side of the subject property. City Council Prescreening The City Council conducted a prescreening meeting on May 1, 2017 to provide guidance on the policy issue of eliminating the special setback for the subject property. The Council provided guidance that the special setback could be eliminated through an amendment process since the hotel was an allowable use for the site and there was no compelling reason to maintain the special setback for the property. The Council provided comment that the corner plaza area should be carefully designed, that a coffee shop or similar use be located near the corner and that the building elevations be stepped back. Development Proposal The project includes demolition of an existing two-story motel and construction of a new four- story 53,598 square foot hotel with surface parking and two levels of underground parking. To accommodate the development, the proposal includes elimination of the 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way (setback map/zoning amendment application). The project would have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.99:1 and a site lot coverage of 39.8%. The project would include a plaza at the corner intersection of Hansen Way and El Camino Real that would feature outdoor seating and have access to a coffee shop. A minor entry into the hotel is located off the plaza and the primary entry is located along Hansen Way adjacent to the driveway onto the site. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The four-story contemporary-designed hotel includes modulations along the Hansen Way elevation. At the ground level, a porte cochere provides for vehicular entry and drop off area leading to the lobby of the hotel. A second story terrace wraps around from the Hansen Way elevation to the El Camino Real elevation with potted plants. The upper floors include terraces or balconies along Hansen Way and El Camino Real. Proposed materials include stone cladding, stone veneer, painted stucco, vision and spandrel glass with aluminum frames and metal paneling. Setback Map/Zoning Amendment To implement the development proposal, the special setback needs to be addressed. The project was the subject of two City Council Pre-Screening meetings. Without making any decisions as to the project, in terms of process, the Council found the setback map amendment approach more appropriate as opposed to pursuing a variance application. Eliminating the special setback results in a zero-foot setback along Hansen, though there is an existing ?? foot sidewalk and parkway that creates a buffer to the roadway. The zoning amendment application is being processed concurrently with an Architectural Review application. Details of the design of the project, including the massing, neighborhood context, availability of vehicle and bicycle parking, and multi-modal circulation, will be evaluated by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The Planning and Transportation Commission’s purview on the project is related to the requested change to the setback map to eliminate the special setback based on whether the change would be in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Project plans (Attachment E) are included with this packet to assist the PTC conceptualize the overall project. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview: • Setback Map/Zoning Amendment (ZA): Elimination of the special setback requires a legislative action. Although PAMC 20.08 does not set forth the procedures for a setback map amendment, the request is equivalent to a zoning map amendment. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80. Rezone applications are reviewed by the PTC and recommendations are forwarded to the City Council. The findings to approve a zoning amendment are included in the draft Ordinance in Attachment B. Additionally, the project also requires approval for the following, which is not subject to PTC review: • Architectural Review – Major: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. However, since this project includes other actions that require approval by the City Council, the Board will make their City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 recommendation to the City Council. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. • Conditional Use Permit—(CUP): Since the hotel will have operations between 10:00pm and 6:00am daily, the project requires the approval of a CUP. This process for evaluating a CUP is set forth in PAMC 18.77.060. Typically, the Director of Planning & Community Environment approves these requests. Since the application includes other actions that require approval by the City Council, this request will be considered by the City Council. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site consists of a 26,878 square foot parcel (0.62 acres), located at the southwestern corner of the Hansen Way and El Camino Real intersection (see location map, Attachment A). The site is within the Commercial Service (CS) zoning designation. The present motel was constructed in 1947 before the 50-foot special setback was established along Hansen Way in 1959, rendering the hotel a “non-complying facility” subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.70. Properties to the east along El Camino Real and directly across Hansen Way are zoned Research Park (RP) and include large surface parking facilities to support research and development offices at 607 Hansen Way. Properties to the west of the site, zoned CS, include the Fish Market and McDonalds restaurants. To the north of the site, across El Camino Real, properties that are also zoned CS include former Footlocker, and personal services uses. To the south of the site (rear) are research and development uses as part of the Stanford Research Park, zoned RP. The CS zoning district was established to create and maintain areas accommodating citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian oriented shopping areas, and which generally require automotive access for customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, or parking of commercial service vehicles. The PAMC allows for a maximum of 0.4:1 for development with the exception of 2.0:1 for hotel development. The height limit is 50-feet for buildings within the CS zoning district. The proposed hotel use is consistent with the zoning district uses. The project proposes a setback along Hansen Way of three feet, where the existing required setback is 50-feet. The applicant seeks relief from the setback in the form of an amendment to the City’s Setback Map (established by Ordinance 1896 in 1959), which is being processed as a zoning map amendment under PAMC 18.80. The special setback limits development on one half of the 100-foot-wide lot adjacent to Hansen Way. The special setback applies to both above ground and below ground structures. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The property is subject to the City’s South El Camino Design Guidelines, which recommend wide sidewalks along El Camino Real and buildings that are situated close to the street. Eliminating the special setback would not cause inconsistency with the South El Camino Real Guidelines. The elimination of the setback would allow the project to better conform to these guidelines. Origins of the Setback & Existing Intrusions The City is unable to uncover any documents that explicitly state the purpose of the 50-foot special setback. It may have been established to accommodate future street widening, or to provide for landscape screening (or privacy) between buildings and uses. While there is no capital improvement plan to implement street widening of Hansen Way at this time, the legislated setbacks here and throughout the City effectively constitute a “reserve” for possible future improvements (which could theoretically involve roads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, landscaping, utilities, etc.). The adjacent office complex at 600 Hansen Way was constructed in 1983 and does not conform with the special setback. The complex has its closest building setback approximately 36’-0” from the property line along Hansen Way. This represents an encroachment of 14 feet into the special setback. There is no justification stated in the project file for this deviation and staff is unable to discover a reason as to why this occurred. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment C. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes with the exception of the special setback. If the setback map amendment is granted, the project would comply with the zoning code. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The attached draft ordinance cites a number of goals and policies that generally support the proposed amendment. The project itself also includes features that support city policies with the inclusion of a corner plaza at a prominent intersection, right-of-way improvements that will improve bicycle and pedestrian safety, and ground floor retail. South El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project is subject to the South El Camino Real Guidelines. The elimination of the special setback allows the project to be more consistent with the Guidelines. The Guidelines consider the site a part of the California Avenue Corridor Area. According to the Guidelines, new buildings should front El Camino Real with prominent facades. Entries should face El Camino Real, or be clearly visible and easily accessible to pedestrians. Auto-oriented development 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 should include pedestrian-friendly design elements to accommodate those arriving by foot or transit. The project will include a secondary pedestrian entry from El Camino Real. The Guidelines encourage visually appealing and functional open space amenities. The project includes an outdoor patio area at the corner of the property, which appears to support this guideline. The use of low walls is encouraged to define this location. The project includes landscaping and other amenities that frame this area. As a part of the project, the existing “pork chop” traffic island that provides a channeled right turn from El Camino Real to Hansen Way would be eliminated. In addition to providing a safer pedestrian and bicycle experience, this allows the project to provide a larger plaza amenity area at the corner. The proposal generally appears to be compliant with a majority of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The proposal provides some appropriate transitions to the surrounding buildings with the varied roof lines and building articulation. The architecture, while modern, is simple in appearance and appears to not detract from the streetscape. Terraces and upper level balconies add visual interest to the street elevations. The proposed project also includes landscaping at the street to improve visual interest and pedestrian comfort. Staff will provide more specific comments to the ARB who will make a recommendation on compliance with the guidelines. Consistency with Application Findings The findings for the action by the Commission are found in PAMC section 18.80.070. The proposed setback map/zoning amendment to eliminate the special setback along the property would be in accord with the purposes of the City’s Zoning Code and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. See Attachment B for details. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project requires the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration has been circulated for public comment from December 4, 2018 to January 3, 2019. The Initial Study evaluated the entirety of the project, including the proposed code amendment and construction-related impacts, among others. The study identified mitigations necessary to reduce physical environmental impacts to less than significant for Air Quality, Biology, Cultural Resources, Geology, and Hazards. There are no impacts identified that specifically relate to the proposed setback amendment. See Attachment E for details. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on November 30, 2018, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 28, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may: 1. Recommend approval of the project to the City Council with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information PTC4 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (408) 340-5624 X 109 (650) 329-2679 sahsing@m-group.us jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Draft Ordinance (PDF) • Attachment C: Zoning Comparison (DOCX) • Attachment D: Applicant's Request Letter (PDF) • Attachment E: Project Plans and Environmental Document (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 50 50 RM- 637 CS CS CS RP 611 52 3225 3239 3255 3295 455 3305 3337 3339 592 572582 3150 3170 3200 3300 607 60 550 447 3 429 451 441 431 3159 411 435 3250425 435 3200 455 460 3201 450 430 400 3263251 0 3802862450 456 470 71 299929512905 461 3000 30173001 3128 3127 850 700 600 3398 3111 473 3225 440 620 630 429 660 3215 3275 3327 3399 3333 3201 3051 3101 3160 3260 2 3265 LA M BERT AVENUE EL CA MINO REAL HANSEN W AY EL CA MINO REAL HANSEN W AY W AY ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE APE EL CA MINO REAL L CA MIN O REAL EL CA MIN O REAL EL CA MINO REAL This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Legend Special Setback Frontages Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels 3200 El Camino Real (Project Site) 0'200' 3200 El Camino Real Area Mapwith Zoning Districts CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2018 City of Palo Alto NOT YET ADOPTED 1 Ordinance No.___ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Setback Map of the City of Palo Alto to Eliminate the 50-Foot Special Setback Along Hansen Way for 3200 El Camino Real The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows: (A) The Planning and Transportation Commission ("Commission"), after a duly noticed public hearing on December 12, 2018, has recommended that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("Council") amend the Setback Map to eliminate the 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way for the subject site (3200 El Camino Real). (B) The Planning and Transportation Commission has reviewed the facts presented at the public hearing, including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the director of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff. (C) The Planning .and Transportation Commission finds that the subject site is within the CS Service Commercial boundary. (D) The Planning and Transportation Commission finds that the elimination of the 50-foot special setback for the subject parcel is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is CS Service Commercial and that the elimination of the special setback does not cause the site or its proposed development to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Goals and Policies: • GOAL L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces. • Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The project is consistent with this goal and policy, because the amendment eliminates a setback that reduced the building envelop of the site by 50%. The elimination of the setback allows for a more efficient use of the site to accommodate parking, and a use that would be compatible with its surroundings. NOT YET ADOPTED 2 • GOAL L-4: Inviting pedestrian scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the city’s residential neighborhoods and employment districts. • Policy L-4.3: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping. • Policy L-4.6: Sites within or adjacent to existing commercial areas and corridors are suitable for hotels. Give preference to housing versus hotel use on sites adjacent to predominantly single-family neighborhoods. • Policy L-4.15: Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing. The elimination of the special setback would accommodate the redevelopment of the site from a low-intensity motel to a higher intensity hotel. This would be consistent with the trend in the vicinity for properties to redevelop. The project would be consistent with the City’s Zoning standards. (E) The Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on __________, and has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter. SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare require an amendment to the Setback Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3. SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Setback Map of the City of Palo Alto to eliminate the 50-foot Special Setback for the subject site, commonly known as 3200 El Camino Real, as described in Exhibit 1 (Legal Description and Map), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5. The Council hereby finds that this setback map amendment is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental assessment and mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project and it has been determined that all potentially adverse impacts that would result from the zoning amendment rezoning of the property can be mitigated to a level of insignificance; therefore, the project would have no significant impact on the environment. SECTION 6. This ordinance. shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOT YET ADOPTED 3 NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ __________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ City Manager _______________________________ Deputy City Attorney ___________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment NOT YET ADOPTED 4 Exhibit 1 – Legal Description and Map BEGINNING at a point in the Southwesterly line of the San Jose and San Francisco Road (California State Highway) as said road was established by Final Order of Condemnation had in the Superior Court of the State of California in and in for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 39384, dated and recorded July 1930, in Book 520 of Official Records, at Page 571, Santa Clara County Records; said point of beginning being distant thereon South 56° 55’ East, 1209.49 feet from the point of intersection of the southeasterly line of Page Mill Road with the Southwesterly line of the said San Jose and San Francisco Road; thence running along the Southwesterly line of that certain 2 acre tract of land described in the decree of distribution entered on August 27, 1920 in the “Matter of the Estate of Margaret Crowley, Deceased”, Case No. 11452, a certified copy of which decree was filed for record on August 27, 1920 in Book 506 of Deeds, at Page 509, Santa Clara County Records; thence at right angles and along the Southeasterly line of said 2 acre Tract, south 33° 5’ West, 296 feet to the Southernmost corner thereof; thence at right angles Northwesterly and along the Southwesterly line of said 2 acre tract North 56° 55’ West, 100 feet; thence at right angle Northeasterly and parallel with the southeasterly line of said 2 acre tract North 33° 5’ East, 296 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion granted to the State of California by Deed recorded October 27, 1960, in Book 5963, Page 194, Official Records, described as follows: COMMENCING at the most Northerly corner of the Parcel of Land conveyed to William W. Milner, et ux, by Deed recorded June 7, 1957, in Book 3816 Page 106, Official Records of Santa Clara County; thence along the Northwesterly line of said Parcel south 34° 21’17” West, 20.00 feet; thence 55° 38’43” East, 26.28 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 104.00 feet, through a central angle of 30° 07’58”, an arc distance of 54.70 feet to a point of compound; thence from a tangent that bears South 25° 30’45” East, along a curve to the right with a radius of 67.00 feet through an angle of 25° 15’54”, an arc distance of 29.54 feet to the southeasterly line of said parcel; thence along last said line North 34° 21’17” East, 53.95 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said property described in said Deed recorded June 7, 1957, in Book 3816, Page 106, Official Records, thence 56° 55’ West, 100.00 feet to the point of commencement. CS CS RP 611 3225 3239 3255 3295 3305 592 572582 604 3150 3170 3200 3300 607 602 451 441 431 421 3159 411 435 3250425 435 3200 455 460 320 1 450 4 370 380 2875 440 450 456 470 471 461 2999 29512905 461 30173001 3128 3127 850 700 60 0 3111 473 322 5 440 620 630 429 660 3215 3275 3399 3201 3051 3101 3160 3265 50 50 LA MEL CA MIN O REA L EL CA MINO R H ANSEN W AY EN W A Y ACA CIA AV E N U E PO RTA G E AVENUE OLIVE A VENU PEPPE O REAL REAL EL C A M IN O RE AL EL C A M I N O RE A L This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts 3200 El Camino Real (Project Site) abc Zone District Labels Special Setback Frontages 0'125' 3200 El Camino RealZone Change Propose to Remove50' Special SetbackonHansen Way Frontage CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2018-11-13 16:10:453200ECR zone setbacks (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) Propose to remove 50' Special Setback at 3200 El Camino Real property line fronting Hansen Way ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3200 El Camino Real, 18PLN-00045 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 0.61 acres (100’ x 258’) 0.61 acres (100’ x 258’) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 2 feet 10’-9” Rear Yard None 5 feet 10 feet to trash enclosure/13’-9” to building Interior Side Yard None 3 feet Varies (4’-10” to 10’) Street Side Yard None 3 feet 0 feet (19 foot setback from curb) Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback on Hansen Way (7) Not compliant 63% (63 feet) along El Camino Real 52% (135 feet) along Hansen Way Special Setback 50 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps 3 feet 0 feet (19 foot setback from curb) Max. Site Coverage None 48.3% (13,000 sf) 39.8% (10,808 sf) Max. Building Height 50 feet 25 feet 49’-8” Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0:1 for hotels 18.18.060(d) 48.35% (283,980 sf) 1.99:1 (53,658 sf) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property The hotel operates 24 hours daily. 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Hotel Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 per guestroom for a total of 99 parking spaces Eating and Drinking – 1 space per 60 sf of public area and 1 space per 200 sf of service area, less up to 75% if approved by the Director for shared use = 4 spaces Total = 103 spaces 22 spaces 82 spaces Providing additional 24 spaces through valet operations. Condition of approval to ensure valet operations plan is approved. Bicycle Parking 1 per 10 guestrooms (100% short term) equals 10 spaces Eating and Drinking - 1 per 600 sf of public area and 1 space per 200 sf of service area = 2 spaces Total = 12 spaces None 10 spaces *condition of approval to achieve compliance. Loading Space 1 loading spaces for 10,000 - 99,999 sf 1 space 1 space The hotel use is subject to the following additional restrictions per PAMC Section 18.16.060(d) (d) Hotel Regulations (1) The purpose of these regulations is to allow floor area for development of hotels in excess of floor area limitations for other commercial uses, in order to provide a visitor-serving use that results in an enhanced business climate, increased transient occupancy tax and sales tax revenue, and other community and economic benefits to the city. (2) Hotels, where they are a permitted use, may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0:1, subject to the following limitations: (A) The hotel use must generate transient occupancy tax (TOT) as provided in Chapter 2.33 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and (B) No room stays in excess of thirty days are permitted, except where the city council approves longer stays through an enforceable agreement with the applicant to provide for compensating revenues. (3) Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to: (A) No more than twenty-five percent of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium use; and (B) No more than twenty-five percent of the total number of lodging units shall be devoted to condominium use; and (C) A minimum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium building(s); and (D) Where residential condominium use is proposed, room stays for other hotel rooms shall not exceed thirty days. (4) Violation of this chapter is subject to enforcement action for stays in excess of thirty days not permitted under the provisions of this chapter, in which case each day of room stay in excess of thirty days shall constitute a separate violation and administrative penalties shall be assessed pursuant to Chapters 1.12 and 1.16. November 14, 2018 Revised 11/16/18 Ms. Jodie Gerhardt Manager of Current Planning Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto 285 Hamilton Drive Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Hotel Parmani 3200 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Subject: Request for Site-Specific Zoning Amendment to Eliminate 50’ Special Setback Dear Ms. Gerhardt, On behalf of our client, Prabhu Corporation, we request a plan line rescindment established by Ordinance 1869 in 1959. This ordinance established a 50’ Special Setback along Hansen Way that affects this property severely, to the extent that redevelopment of the small parcel is impossible for any type of product that is equivalent to the existing hotel or better. The setback applied to this property (100’ x 275.99’) runs in the east/west direction and runs through the middle of the site 50’ into the 100’ depth (north/south direction). Our client seeks a site-specific zoning amendment to eliminate the Special Setback line along this property for the new proposed Hotel Parmani. The proposed hotel is a 4-story, 50’ high structure with ninety-nine (99) rooms, one hundred and six (106) parking spaces, with two-levels of underground parking situated on a 26,878 square foot parcel. The proposed project would replace an existing two-story, 36-room, 16,943 square foot hotel that would be completely demolished as part of the project, resulting in an additional 63 rooms on the site. The proposed project complies with all zoning requirements of the Service Commercial (CS) District, but would encroach into the 50’ special setback running parallel with Hansen Way. The existing hotel encroaches into the special setback that was established after the hotel was built in 1948. It is our opinion and the City’s that the 50’ setback was established as a design parameter for the Stanford Business Park west of our project property. The large parklike setback makes sense for the business park, but not for this property that fronts El Camino, which has a completely different massing and interface with transportation and the public. We presented this project several times to ARB and the City Council, as design is a key consideration for a zoning amendment to eliminate the setback line from this property. In an initial pre-screen with City Council on 5/1/2017, council members indicated that a zoning amendment is the proper vehicle to eliminate the setback requirement, rather than a variance. While a variance Ms. Jodie Gerhardt November 16, 2018 2 does not seem to be the right path to pursue, the City’s municipal code regarding grounds for a variance make sense even in support of a zoning amendment. Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PMC”) Chapter 20.76.30 provides the following grounds for a variance: There are special conditions or exceptional characteristics in the nature of the property affected by the application, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, such that a literal enforcement of this chapter in the particular case would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships; The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations imposed by this chapter on other properties in the vicinity of the affected property; and The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of this chapter or to the purposes and objectives of the general plan of the City of Palo Alto. There are exceptional characteristics in the nature of the property such that a literal enforcement of the chapter, in this case, would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. The site is 100’ wide by 275.99’ in length. Application of the setback would slice the usable area of this property by more than half, from 26,878 square feet to 13,137 square feet. A rescindment of the special setback is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Without a variance or plan line rescindment, the property owner has two choices: (1) leave the property undeveloped and continue the existing operation, or (2) develop the property, and if required via enforcement of the special setback, lose half of its usable area. The latter of the two choices presupposes a financially feasible project resulting from a diminution in usable square footage. A rescindment would not constitute special privilege to this property inconsistent with the limitations imposed on other properties in the vicinity of the affected property. As mentioned, this property does not reside in the Stanford Research Park, nor is it zoned RP (Research Park). All other lots affected by the special setback are much larger in size than the site of the proposed hotel project. The intended use of RP lots and of CS lots is different, and application of the special setback to the smaller CS lot would be proportionately harsher than to the larger lots in the RP zone. The hotel property is ill-equipped for any major re-development in the absence of a variance or plan line rescindment because, unlike lots in the neighboring Stanford Research Park, this site lacks sufficient depth and size to simultaneously comply with the special setback and achieve a financially feasible project. Enforcement of the special setback would constrain the property to 13,137 usable square feet, which does not provide enough area for development. Since the site is only 100’ wide, the 50’ setback limits the usable area of the site by half, making it sub-optimal and financially undevelopable. Please consider the following:  The 50’ special setback was designed for the Stanford Industrial Park (now called the Stanford Research Park) in 1951 and adopted by the City in 1959 (via Ordinance 1869) in order to provide a bucolic “campus-like” setting. The subject site, however, is not within the Stanford Research Park. Ms. Jodie Gerhardt November 16, 2018 3  The existing hotel currently encroaches into the 50’ special setback by 48’-3” as a pre-existing, grandfathered condition. The proposed hotel will similarly encroach into the special setback by 47’.  The intent of the CS zone is to provide citywide and regional services. A hotel is a permitted use and this proposed project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and intent of the General Plan and CS zone.  Per PMC Section 18.20.010(d), the adjacent RP district and associated special setbacks: [P]rovide[] for a limited group of research and manufacturing uses that may have unusual requirements for space, light, and air, and desire sites in a research park environment… The RP district is intended for application to land designated for research and office park use in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan on sites that are west of El Camino Real and held in large parcels….  Unlike the neighboring RP district, which provides for uses that have unusual requirements for space, the project site is located in the CS district and is not desirous of a research park environment, nor sits on a large parcel with unusual requirements for space, light, and air. In fact, the proposed project could work within the confines of its existing space but for the special setback.  The zoning map shows the hotel site “notched out” of the Stanford Research Park. This notch creates a unique, anomalous condition where the site is subject to the 50’ setback on Hansen Way, yet is physically outside of the Stanford Research Park as evidenced by its zoning designation as Service Commercial (CS).  This project’s primary frontage is El Camino Real – not Hansen Way. The existing hotel has no openings or visual relationship to Hansen Way, affirming El Camino Real as the primary frontage. Due to the use types associated with the CS zone, the minimum side yard setback for the CS zone is 0’, a condition that would be met with the proposed project.  505 California Avenue, located at the southwest corner of the El Camino Real intersection, is a similar, mirror-like site, two blocks north of this proposed hotel. El Camino Real is its primary frontage, California Avenue is its secondary frontage, and the south side of California Avenue is subject to a 50’ special setback. The site is zoned CS - AS1 (Alternative Development Standards Overlay 1). Per PMC 18.60.050(A), this zone, which only pertains to this particular block, allows commercial uses with no minimum side yard setback. In the City and Stanford University’s 2005 “Mayfield Agreement”, the City recognized that this commercial site can “take[] advantage of the site’s location on El Camino Real” and utilize minimal setbacks consistent with commercial uses. In other words, the City has established a precedent for reducing a setback for a commercial site on El Camino Real, adjacent to the Stanford Research Park.  The existing hotel was originally constructed in the 1940s and is outdated in design and has many grandfathered conditions with respect to current code.  The proposed hotel will provide much desired visual enhancement to this prominent Palo Alto intersection as a gateway into the Stanford Research Park. The new hotel would add jobs, and importantly, deliver sixty-three (63) additional rooms that would generate additional tax revenue for the City of Palo Alto. A top-notch hotel at the base of Stanford Research Park would undoubtedly increase tax revenue as well as provide global travelers to Palo Alto an optimal base near Page Mill Road. Ms. Jodie Gerhardt November 16, 2018 4  The project will provide a more pedestrian-friendly experience at the intersection of El Camino Real and Hansen Way.  The project will resolve existing street improvement flows at the intersection.  The adjacent building to the west, most likely constructed in the 1970s, encroaches into the 50’ special setback. It is our belief that the uses, density, and visual character of the El Camino Real corridor are different than its adjoining arterial roads for good reasons. The fulfillment of the City’s development density, prescribed in the General Plan, brings new commerce and modernization of aging infrastructure. With “infill” development comes the need to reconcile overlapping Planning criteria to find true design solutions. We believe that rescindment of the 50’ special setback line along Hansen Way, along this property’s southern edge, is an appropriate adjustment to achieve optimal use of the property without compromising the atmosphere of Stanford Research Park. In summary, the proposed hotel is a permitted use that can meet all zoning criteria without the 50’ special setback, including satisfying the El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and provides substantial benefits to both the City and property owner. Please call if you have any questions or need more information. Thank you for considering our request. Sincerely, ARCHITECTURAL DIMENSIONS James Heilbronner, President Enclosures CC: Yatin Patel OT118 ATTACHMENT E Project Plans and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hardcopies of project plans and the Initial Study are provided to Board members. These plans and environmental documents are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “3200 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, Initial Study and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2716 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 9710) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/12/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2321 Wellesley Street: Zone Change from R-1 to RMD(NP) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2321 Wellesley Street [18PLN-00178]: Request for a Zoning Map Amendment to Change the Subject Property From R-1 to RMD(NP) to Construct a Two-Family Residence. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15303. Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez (samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org) From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Find the proposed ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(b). 2. Recommend approval of the proposed ordinance (Attachment B) to the City Council. Background Project Information Owner: Jack Culpepper Architect: Jarvis Architects Representative: Not Specified Legal Counsel: Not Specified Property Information Address: 2321 Wellesley St Neighborhood: College Terrace Lot Dimensions & Area: 50’ x 125’; 6,250 sf Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: One (1) Street Tree Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): Vacant Lot Existing Land Use(s): Vacant Lot Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RMD (NP) (Multi-Family Residential) West: PF (College Terrace Library) East: RMD (NP) (Multi-Family Residential) South: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Special Setbacks: Not Applicable Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: R-1 Single Family Residential District Comp. Plan Designation: Single Family (SF) Context-Based Design: Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Prescreening For Rezoning (October 2, 2017) Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61252 Transcript (starting on page 17): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62983 PTC: Not Applicable HRB: Not Applicable ARB: Not Applicable Project Description and Process A request for Major Architectural Review and Zone Change to change the zoning district from R-1 to RMD(NP). The project also includes the construction of a new attached duplex units (two units) on the existing vacant site. The proposed duplex is comprised of an approximately 2,915 square foot, two-story dwelling with an attached 1,126 square foot second (duplex) unit located in the basement. The rezoning application is being processed concurrently with an Architectural Review application. Details of the design of the project, including the massing, neighborhood context, parking facilities, landscaping, and open space, will be evaluated by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) at a hearing following the Planning and Transportation Commission’s hearing. Furthermore, the ARB will evaluate whether the project plans, which are provided to the PTC for informational purposes, are in conformance with the Municipal Code, including the (NP) Combining District (PAMC Section 18.10.140), as well as the Comprehensive Plan. The PTC public hearing on the rezoning process is codified in Section 18.80.070. In summary, the Planning and Transportation Commission’s purview on the project is to make a recommendation on the requested change from R-1 to RMD(NP) based on whether the change would be in accord with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Requested Entitlements and Findings: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview: • Zone Change: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80. This Code Section is intended to provide a review process for changes in district City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 boundaries, or by changing the regulations applicable within one or more districts, whenever the public interest or general welfare may so require. The PTC’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Additionally, the project requires design review, which is not the purview of the PTC: • Major Architectural Review: If the Zone Change is recommended for approval, the project then requires review before the Architectural Review Board per the required design review processes of the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP) set forth in PAMC 18.10.140. The purpose of design review of properties in an (NP) combining district is to achieve compatibility of scale, silhouette, façade articulation, and materials of new construction with existing structure on the same property or on surrounding properties within a combining district. Analysis1 The subject parcel is approximately 6,250 square feet, is currently zoned R-1, and has historically been used as a single-family residence. However, the 1931 dwelling was demolished in the early 1990s and the parcel has remained vacant. The subject parcel is located directly adjacent to a Public Facility zoned site (College Terrace Children’s Center, College Terrace Library and Mayfield Park) and is surrounded by multi-family and duplex dwellings in the RMD (NP) zone to the north and to the east. The relationship of the subject parcel relative to the surrounding zoning can be viewed on Attachment A. The subject property is the only R-1 zoned property on the north side of this block of Wellesley Street. The subject parcel is surrounded by a mixture of one-story and two-story residences, and multi-family apartment buildings located at 2226 Wellesley Street, 811 College Avenue, and 2345 Wellesley Street. The existing R-1 zoning of the subject parcel allows for the construction of a new single-family residence as well as construction of an accessory dwelling unit. The Residential Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District (RMD) would permit two full size dwellings under the same ownership. Though both the R-1 and RMD zone allow for two dwelling units on the subject parcel under common ownership, the R-1 zone would achieve the second dwelling unit by way of adding an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), which is limited to 600 square feet in area. (900 square feet, if detached). The RMD zone allows for two, single-family homes without the same floor area limitation. The requested zone change to RMD also involves the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP), which modifies the RMD two unit multiple-family residential district areas, and requires the preservation of the visual and historic character of such designated neighborhoods. The (NP) combining district requires formal review by the Architectural Review 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Board (ARB) to ensure quality design and compatibility with surrounding properties. Review before the ARB is pending. Rezoning the property from R-1 to RMD (NP) modifies the development potential of the site and increases allowances for lot coverage, height, and floor area. A detailed comparison of these and other differences between the zones are shown in the chart below. Comparison of Site Development Standards Between R-1 and RMD (NP) Zoning Districts R-1 RMD (NP) Subject Lot Size 6,250 sf 6,250 sf Maximum Site Coverage 35% (+5% for eaves, cover patios, etc.) = 2,187.5 sf (+312.5 sf) 40% = 2,500 sf Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2,625 sf (.45 FAR first 5,000 sf + .30 FAR of remaining sf) 3,125 sf* (.50 FAR first 5,000 sf + .50 FAR of remaining sf) Front Yard Setback 20 ft 20 ft Side Yard Setback 6 ft 6 ft Rear Yard Setback 20 ft 20 ft Height Limit 35 ft 35 ft Required Parking (Two-units) Two required (one space required covered) Three required (two spaces required covered) Daylight Plane Side Yards 10 feet (initial height); 45 degree angle over 15 feet (initial height); 45 degree angle over Daylight Plane Rear Yard 16 feet (initial height); 60 degree angle over 15 feet (initial height); 45 degree angle over *PAMC 18.10.040(a)(4) allows floor area limits to be exceeded up to a maximum of 200 square feet for the purpose of providing one required covered parking space in the R-2 and RMD zoning districts. The differences in the development standards outside of floor area are minor and when viewed in terms of neighborhood compatibility, any proposed development on the subject site can be designed to be compatible with both the multi-family and single-family developments in the neighborhood within either zoning district. While there is an economic advantage for rezoning the property, the location and site conditions are such that staff does not anticipate a significant impact one way or another with respect to keeping the zoning as is or changing it as requested by the property owner. The applicant’s reasons supporting the zone change are provided in Attachment C. Though it is not within the PTC purview regarding this application to comment on the design of the proposed residential development, the proposed design can be viewed in Attachment D. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan2 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 On balance, the requested zone change and the intention to develop two dwelling units on the subject parcel is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans as it would provide two net new housing units to the City housing supply. In addition, the (NP) combining district requires any new development on the subject site to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which is consistent with Policy L-3.1 which seeks to “Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures”. Furthermore, the requested zone change would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plans Land-Use Map as the RMD(NP) zone district is designated Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Guideline Section 15303(b) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This application falls under this exemption as it involves a proposed duplex residential structure that totals no more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on November 30, 2018, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 28, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information PTC3 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2679 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpalolalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Draft Ordinance (DOCX) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 • Attachment C: Applicant's Request Letter (PDF) • Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 2 6Jodie Gerhardt 5Russ Reich Coll e g e T e r r a c e _ L i b r a r y 165 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 25. 0 ' 50.0 ' 140. 0 ' 75.0 ' 180. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 180 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 264 . 1 ' 660 . 9 ' 264 . 1 ' 659 . 7 ' 658. 9 ' 198 . 3 ' 659. 7 ' 198 . 3 ' 115. 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115. 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 75.0 ' 140 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 25.0 '25.0 ' 50.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 34. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 34. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115. 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 80.0' 125 . 0 ' 80. 0 ' 125.0'61. 5 ' 125 . 0 ' 61. 5 ' 125 . 0 ' 36.0' 125 . 0 ' 36. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 75.0' 125 . 0 ' 75. 0 ' 125.0'25100 25.0 ' 99125 7.5'100.0'7.5'100.0' 13. 5 ' 125 . 0 ' 13.5 ' 125 . 0 ' 38. 7 ' 18.0 ' 10. 5 ' 95.0 ' 28.0 ' 113 . 0 ' 56. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 28. 0 ' 95.0 ' 10. 5 '18.0 ' 38. 7 ' 12.0 ' 28. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 28. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 40. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 416 . 0 ' 658 . 9 ' 416 . 0 ' 657 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115. 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 192.5'119. 9 ' 125.0'144.9'50.0'90.0'17.5'174.7'22.5'100.0'22.5'100.0' 100 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 100 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 45. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 45.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 65. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 65. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 57. 5 ' 100 . 0 ' 57. 5 ' 100 . 0 ' 25. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 25.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 25. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 25. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 160 . 0 ' 310 . 0 ' 160. 0 ' 310 . 0 ' 115 . 0 ' 75.0 ' 115. 0 ' 75.0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 37.5 ' 115 . 0 ' 37.5 ' 115 . 0 ' 37.5 ' 115 . 0 ' 37.5 ' 115.0'50.0'115.0'50.0' 46. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 46. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 6 25 229 5 228 5 231 4 - 234 0 228 2 - 2 2 8 8 239 4 239 2 239 0 239 6 236 9 236 1 235 3 237 7 239 3 234 5 72 0 - 74 0 75 2 - 7 6 0 75 0 85 0 860 86 8 - 87 6 78 0 232 1 80 0 2310 230 1 231 7 233 1 2330 233 3 - 2 3 3 7 234 2 234 4 62 4 64 2 65 8 234 3 - 234 7 238 5 239 5 550 227 7 2251 227 1 234 0 233 0 235 7 235 3 234 5 232 0 234 9 232 5 229 5 228 5 222 6 - 224 8 70 7 70 3 73 9 75 7 224 1 225 5 226 0 228 0 223 9 230 0 225 2 225 4 71 5 - 72 7 2215 232 4 238 5 228 9 229 1 64 4 234 6 YALE STREET WI L L I A M S S T R E E T CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E W E L L E S L E Y S T R E E T PF This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts Project Site 0'71' 2321 Wellesley St CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R AT E D C ALIFOR NI A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1 894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sgutier, 2018-12-06 14:26:08 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\sgutier.mdb) RMD (NP) R-1 Proj e c t S i t e Not Yet Approved 1 of 5 Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto for 2321 Wellesley Street to Change the Zoning from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) to the RMD(NP) (Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District with Neighborhood Preservation Overlay) Zoning District The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on December 12, 2018, at which it reviewed, considered, and recommended Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) be amended to rezone that certain real property commonly known as 2321 Wellesley Street and more particularly described in Exhibit A) change the zoning from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) to the RMD(NP) (Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District with Neighborhood Preservation Overlay) zoning district. B. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on ________, and considered the subject amendment of the Zoning Map, including the recommendation by staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission and all public comments received prior to or at the hearing. C. The site has existed as a vacant site within the R-1 zone, and the uses proposed for the site under the RMD (NP) zone are of such characteristics that the proposed dwellings meets the application of the general district and the combining district. D. Development of the site under the provisions of the RMD (NP) (Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District) (Neighborhood Preservation Combining District) will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of existing general district (R-1 Single Family Residential) in that the Project includes the following public benefit that id inherent to the Project and above those required by city zoning districts: • An undeveloped lot will be developed with a two unit residential building in a residential neighborhood with mixed zoning, developed under the RMD(NP) general district and combining district to provided two dwelling units with less restrictions in regards to the development standards for the additional dwelling unit if the site were to be developed within the existing R-1 general district. Not Yet Approved 2 of 5 • The council further finds that these public benefits are of sufficient importance to make the Project as a whole, which includes an additional housing unit of greater size than that which the existing zoning would permit, and as the additional housing unit is located below grade and would be exempted from the calculation of floor area, allowing more desirable dwellings to be developed which are considered a public benefit. E. The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the District are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the existing and potential uses on the adjoining sites or within the general vicinity in that the Project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: • Local Land Use Policy L-3.1 which seeks to “Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures” SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by changing the zoning from the Single Family Residential (R-1) to the Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District with Neighborhood Preservation Overlay (RMD(NP)) zoning district for all that real property situated in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described in Exhibit A (Legal Description and Map) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and commonly known as 2321 Wellesley Street. SECTION 3. The City Council finds that the project, including this zoning map amendment, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(b) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This application falls under this exemption as it involves a proposed duplex residential structure that totals no more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area. // // // // // // Not Yet Approved 3 of 5 SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Deputy City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Not Yet Approved 4 of 5 Exhibit A – Legal Description and Map Not Yet Approved 5 of 5 Attachment D Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to the PTC. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “2321 Wellesley Street” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4411&TargetID=319 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 9838) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/12/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Ordinance Amending 18.42.10 Title: PUBLIC HEARING. PTC Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Update the Code to Reflect Recently Adopted FCC Regulations. CEQA: This Ordinance is Exempt from Environmental Review Under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15305. From: Jonathan Lait RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance (Attachment A) amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning). BACKGROUND The tremendous growth in personal wireless services has created an increased demand for new wireless antennas and equipment. It is expected that carriers will continue to roll out new facilities in Palo Alto, with a particular focus on “small cell” facilities, to accommodate the rapidly growing need for increased capacity and speed. Wireless telecommunications facilities (WCF) are regulated by federal, state and local laws. State and federal laws significantly limit the City’s ability to regulate WCFs. In 2015, City Council passed Ordinance No. 5340, which updated Section 18.42.110 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code pertaining to the siting and permitting of Wireless Communications Facilities. This ordinance implemented federal requirements under 47 U.S.C. § 1455, the “Spectrum Act,” which governs minor modifications to existing WCFs, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s procedural rules for implementation of the Spectrum Act. The ordinance established a straightforward permitting process for WCF modification requests covered under the Spectrum Act, codified other permit processing time rules (commonly City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 known as “Shot Clocks”), clarified its applicability to Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) facilities, and established a 3-tiered permitting system than favors collocations over new structures. Recently, the FCC promulgated new rules (“FCC 18-133”) designed to remove regulatory barriers to the deployment of infrastructure necessary to support 5G and other advanced wireless services and further limiting local discretion. These rules apply to a subset of WCFs defined as “Small Wireless Facilities,” which are commonly deployed on streetlights and utility poles in the public rights of way. The FCC adopted FCC 18-133 on September 26, 2018, and provided for it to become effective 90 days after it is published in the Federal Register, on January 14, 2019. FCC 18-133 is binding on local governments, unless and until a court orders otherwise. DISCUSSION FCC 18-133 creates a new category of WCFs called “Small Wireless Facilities” and adopts two shortened permit processing time rules, or “Shot Clocks,” for Small Wireless Facilities—60 days for review of an application for collocation using a preexisting structure and 90 days for review of an application using a new structure. These Small Wireless Facilities Shot Clocks may be tolled by the City for incomplete applications, provided the City notifies the applicant within 10 days of submittal. The Shot Clock then restarts once the applicant submits the supplemental information requested by the City. The FCC’s Declaratory Ruling and Order also interprets existing laws in a manner that further limits local control, including: 1. The definition of an “effective prohibition” is broadened. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 precludes a city from effectively prohibiting the provision of wireless services. In the Ninth Circuit, this meant that a city could not stop a carrier from closing a “significant gap” in its own coverage. The FCC declared that a city effectively prohibits services any time it “materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.” Under this standard, a wireless provider will be entitled not only to fill significant gaps in its coverage, but also to densify its network, improve its service, and introduce new services. 2. Fees are presumptively limited. The FCC declared that fees charged by a city, including application processing fees, consultant fees, and ongoing attachment fees, must be: (a) a reasonably approximation of the city’s costs; (b) objectively reasonable; and (c) non- discriminatory among similarly situated providers. For Small Wireless Facilities, the FCC adopted presumptively reasonable fees of $500 in application processing fees for up to five facilities and $270 per year for attachment fees. While the application processing fees are significantly lower than the City’s current costs, its proposed attachment fees are more in-line with the City’s attachment fees, which are already limited by state law City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 (AB 1027) in most cases. The City will continue to recover its full, objectively reasonable costs. 3. Aesthetic review must be based on objective standards. The FCC declared that aesthetic regulations must be: (a) reasonable; (b) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments; and (c) objective and published in advance. Currently, Section 18.42.110 requires applications to comply with a handful of objective standards as well as the City’s Architectural Review findings (for Tier 2 and 3 projects). Staff are beginning to develop additional objective aesthetic standards to take the place of the Architectural Review findings. Cities may take up to 180 days following the effective date of the FCC regulations to develop and publish these standards. To implement FCC 18-133, the City has prepared amendments to Section 18.42.110. The amendments add Small Wireless Facilities sections to the tiered permitting system that the City established in 2015; add new Shot Clocks for the processing of Small Wireless Facilities permits, consistent with the FCC rules; and anticipate the publication of objective aesthetic standards. Summary of Proposed Amendments to 18.42.110 The proposed amendments add permit applications for the collocation of Small Wireless Facilities under the Tier 2 review category, and make the Shot Clock for the City’s processing of those applications 60 days. The proposed amendments add permit applications for the siting of Small Wireless Facilities on new structures under the Tier 3 review category, and make the Shot Clock for the City’s processing of those applications 90 days. The proposed amendments add a section clarifying that batched applications are processed within the same timeframe that would apply had the applicant submitted the applications individually, unless the batch includes applications for both collocation and new construction of Small Wireless Facilities, in which case the longer 90-day Shot Clock applies. For all Small Wireless Facility permit applications, the City must provide applicants with written notice that an application is incomplete within 10 days of application submittal. Table 1: Wireless Facility Permit Process (Proposed Amendments Underlined) Type of Wireless Facility Timeline for City Decision (Prescribed by Federal Law) Notice of Incompleteness of Application Provided to Applicant By City Collocations or modifications/replacements of wireless transmission equipment at an existing wireless tower or base station that do not “substantially change the physical dimensions of the existing wireless tower or base station.” (Section 6409(a) Facilities) • 60 days after application is submitted • Can extend by mutual agreement • Within 30 days of application submittal Collocations of a Small Wireless Facility • 60 days after application is submitted • Within 10 days of application submittal City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Other collocations “not eligible for a Tier 1 WCF Permit” or that “substantially change the physical dimensions of the existing wireless tower or base station.” • 90 days after application submitted • Within 30 days of application submittal New structure-mounted Small Wireless Facilities • 90 days after application submitted • Within 10 days of application submittal New structure-mounted WCF’s (excluding Small Wireless Facilities) • 150 days after application submitted • Within 30 days of application submittal POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed ordinance is consistent with recently adopted FCC regulations, which will go into effect in January 2019. Although several municipalities have brought legal challenges to the FCC regulations, they are binding on local governments, unless and until a court orders otherwise. In the event one or more pertinent provisions of the FCC regulations is stayed or invalidated, staff will prepare an ordinance reverting provisions of Section 18.42.110 to their former status, as appropriate. Unfortunately, because a reviewing court may stay or invalidate selective portions of the FCC’s regulations, it is impossible to draft a provision that would make such reversion self-executing. RESOURCE IMPACT The attached ordinance is not anticipated to result in any resource impact. Although the FCC regulations create new presumptively reasonable fees for Small Wireless Facilities, the City is entitled and will continue to collect the full amount of its objectively reasonable costs for application processing and ongoing pole attachments. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The attached ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b) and 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it simply provides a comprehensive permitting scheme. Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Albert Yang Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2171 (650) 329-2679 albert.yang@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 • Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Section 18.42.110 (DOCX) Not Yet Approved 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Update the Code Consistent with the FCC’s Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (FCC 18-133) The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The tremendous growth in personal wireless services has created an increased demand for new wireless antennas and equipment. Wireless service providers are increasingly seeking to utilize public rights of way to deploy small wireless facilities to improve and expand coverage. B. The City Council has adopted a Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs) code to regulate the various health, welfare, and safety impacts presented by the proliferation of WCFs and to balance these impacts with the interests of consumers in receiving the benefits of wireless technologies. C. Federal and state law place significant limits on the City’s exercise of local control over WCF matters. On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (WT Docket No. 17-79; WC Docket No. 17-84; FCC 18-133), further limiting local control. D. The amendments herein are necessary to conform the City’s WCF code with FCC 18-133, which will go into effect on January 14, 2019. SECTION 2. Section 18.42.110 of Chapter 18.42 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (a) Purpose and Interpretation The purpose of this section is two-fold: (A) to implement within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city the applicable zoning, land use and other laws, rules, regulations and policies and procedures applicable to siting applications filed with the city by wireless communications facilities infrastructure owners and operators and wireless communications service providers, which seek to install or attach their facilities at locations in Palo Alto; and (B) to accommodate new wireless technologies and continued improvements to existing wireless communications facilities while minimizing their adverse visual and structural health and safety impacts. Consistent with that purpose, the provisions of this section are to be construed in a manner that is consistent with (1) the interest of consumers in receiving the benefits of the Not Yet Approved 2 deployment of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communication facilities technology and innovations and the delivery of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communications facilities services, (2) the interest in safeguarding the environment, preserving historic properties, and addressing aesthetics and other local values, and (3) the interest in promoting the public health, safety and welfare in Palo Alto. A wireless communications facility is permitted to be sited in Palo Alto subject to applicable requirements imposed by this chapter, which may include an architectural review process, a conditional use permit application process, or both. These processes are intended to permit wireless communications facilities that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public safety. The procedures prescribed by this chapter are tailored to the type of wireless communication facility that is sought. Building-mounted wireless communications facilities and collocation of facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of this section. (b) Definitions The following abbreviations, phrases, terms and words shall have the meanings assigned in this section or, as appropriate, in Section 18.04.030 and Section 1.04.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time, unless the context indicates otherwise. Words that are not defined in this section or other chapters or sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall have the meanings as set forth in Chapter 6 of Title 47 of the United States Code, Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and, if not defined therein, their common and ordinary meaning. (1) "Antenna" means a wireless antenna and its associated equipment. The term includes a macrocell antenna and a microcell antenna. (2) "Associated equipment" means any and all on-site equipment, including, without limitation, back-up generators and power supply units, cabinets, coaxial and fiber optic cables, connections, shelters, radio transceivers, regular power supply units, and wiring, to which a wireless antenna is attached in order to facilitate mobile broadband service and personal wireless service delivered on mobile broadband devices. (3) "Base Station" means a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC- licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with a tower. Base Station includes, without limitation: (i) Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. (ii) Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems ("DAS") and small-cell networks). Not Yet Approved 3 (iii) Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under this section, supports or houses equipment described in paragraphs (i)-(ii) above and has been previously reviewed and approved by the city. (4) "Collocation" means the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. (5) "Eligible Facilities Request" means any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that, within the meaning of the Spectrum Act, does not substantially change the physical dimensions of that tower or base station, and involves (a) the collocation of new transmission equipment, (b) the removal of transmission equipment, or (c) the replacement of transmission equipment. (6) "Eligible Support Structure" means any existing tower or base station that exists at the time the application is filed with the city. (7) "Existing" for a constructed tower or base station, means that the tower or base station has been previously reviewed and approved under the applicable city zoning or siting process, or under another applicable state or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is "Existing" for purposes of this definition. (8) "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission or successor agency. (9) "Project" means a WCF to be located in Palo Alto for which a permit is required by the city. (10) "RF" means radio frequency on the radio spectrum. (11) "Spectrum Act" means Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (providing, in part, "… a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any Eligible Facilities Request for a modification of any existing wireless Tower or Base Station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such Tower or Base Station."). (12) "Small Wireless Facility," consistent with 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1312(e)(2), means a facility that meets each of the following conditions: (i) The structure on which antenna facilities are mounted: (a) Is 50 feet or less in height, or (b) Is no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or (c) Is not extended to a height of more than 10 percent above its preexisting height as a result of the collocation of new antenna facilities; and Not Yet Approved 4 (ii) Each antenna (excluding associated antenna equipment) is no more than three cubic feet in volume; and (iii) All antenna equipment associated with the facility (excluding antennas) are cumulatively no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; and (iv) The facility does not require antenna structure registration under 47 C.F.R. Section 17; and (v) The facility is not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 C.F.R. § 800.16(x); and (vi) The facility does not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified by the FCCin Rule 1.1307(b). (1213) "Substantially Changes" means, in the context of an eligible support structure, a modification of an existing tower or base station where any of the following criteria is met: (i) For a tower not located in the public rights-of-way: (a) The height of the tower is increased by (I) more than ten (10) percent, or (II) by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater; or (b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower by (I) more than twenty (20) feet, or (II) more than the width of the tower at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater. (ii) For a tower located in the public rights-of-way and for all base stations: (a) The height of the tower or base station is increased by more than ten (10) percent or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater; or (b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of that structure that would protrude from the edge of that structure by more than six (6) feet; or (c) It involves the installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten (10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; or (d) It involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there is no pre-existing ground cabinet associated with that structure. (iii) For any eligible support structure: (a) It involves the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four (4) cabinets; or (b) There is entailed in the proposed modification any excavation or deployment outside of the current site of the tower or base station; or Not Yet Approved 5 (c) The proposed modification would cause the concealment/camouflage elements of the tower or base station to be defeated; or (d) The proposed modification would not comply with the conditions associated with the prior siting approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding thresholds in this section. (iv) To measure changes in height for the purposes of this section, the baseline is: (a) For deployments that are or will be separated horizontally, measured from the original support structure; (b) For all others, measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (v) To measure changes for the purposes of this section, the baseline is the dimensions that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (1314) "Tower" means any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC-licensed or -authorized antenna, including any structure that is constructed for wireless communications service. This term does not include a base station. (1415) "Transmission Equipment" means equipment that facilitates transmission of any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service. (1516) "Wireless Communications Facility" or "WCF" means any antenna, associated equipment, base station, small cell system, Small Wireless Facility, tower, and/or transmission equipment located in Palo Alto. (1617) "Wireless Communications Service" means, without limitation, all FCC-licensed back-haul and other fixed wireless services, broadcast, private, and public safety communication services, and unlicensed wireless services. (c) Types of WCF Permits Required (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be required for an eligible facilities request, as defined in this section. (2) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be required for: (i) Any modification of an eligible support structure, including the collocation of new equipment, that substantially changes the physical dimensions of the eligible support structure on which it is mounted; or (ii) Any collocation of a Small Wireless Facility; or (iii) Any other collocation not eligible for a Tier 1 WCF Permit. Not Yet Approved 6 (3) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be required for the siting of any WCF, including a Small Wireless Facility, that is not a collocation subject to a Tier 1 or 2 WCF Permit. (d) WCF Application Requirements All applications for a WCF Permit shall include the following items: (1) Any applicant for a WCF Permit shall participate in an intake meeting with the Planning and Community Environment Department to filewhen filing an application; (2) The applicant must specify in writing whether the applicant believes the application is for an eligible facilities request subject to the Spectrum Act, and if so, provide a detailed written explanation as to why the applicant believes that the application qualifies as an eligible facilities request; (3) The applicant shall complete the city's standard application form, as may be amended from time to time; (4) The applicant shall include a completed and signed application checklist available from the city, including all information required by the application checklist; (5) Payment of the fee prescribed by the Municipal Fee Schedule; (6) The application must be accompanied by all permit applications with all required application materials for each separate permit required by the city for the proposed WCF, including a building permit, an encroachment permit (if applicable) and an electrical permit (if applicable); (7) For Tier 2 and 3 WCF Permits, the applicant must host a community meeting at a time and location designed to maximize attendance by persons receiving notice under this subparagraph to provide outreach to the neighborhood around the project site. The applicant shall give notice of the community meeting to all residents and property owners within 600 feet of the project site at least 14 days in advance of the community meeting. The Before an application may be considered complete, the applicant shall provide a proof of notice affidavit to the city that contains: (i) Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting before filing the application; (ii) A summary of comments received at the community meeting and what, if any, changes were made to the application as a result of the meeting; (8) For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed project that would be feasible and permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed project as a baseline; and (9) Satisfy other such requirements as may be, from time to time, required by the Planning and Community Environment Department Director ("Director"), as publically stated in the application checklist. Not Yet Approved 7 (e) Permit Review ("Shot Clock") Time Periods (1) City review of application materials. The timeframe for review of an application shall begin to run when the application is submitted, but shall be tolled if the city finds the application incomplete and provides notice of incompleteness that delineates the missing information in writing. Such requests The city shall provide notice of incompleteness shall be made within 10 days of submission of Small Wireless Facility applications, and within 30 days of submission of the all other applications. After submission of additional information, the city will notify the applicant within 10 days of this submission if the additional information failed to complete the application. If the city makes a determination pursuant to Section 18.42.110(e)(2)(i) that an application submitted as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request should be processed as a Tier 2 or Tier 3, then the Tier 2 or Tier 3 processing time, as applicable, shall begin to run when the city issues this decision. (2) Tier 1 processing time. For Tier 1 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the WCF application, together with any other city permits required for a proposed WCF modification, within 60 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (i) If the city determines that the application does not qualify as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request, the city will notify the applicant of that determination in writing and will process the application as a Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF Permit application, as applicable. (ii) To the extent state or federal law provides a "deemed granted" remedy for Tier 1 WCF Permit applications not timely acted upon by the city, no such application shall be deemed granted until the applicant provides notice to the city, in writing, that the application has been deemed granted after the time period provided in Section (e)(2) above has expired. (iii) Any Tier 1 WCF Permit application that the city grants or that is deemed granted by operation of state or federal law shall be subject to all requirements of Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7) and 18.42.110(j)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). (3) Tier 2 processing time. For Tier 2 WCF Permit applications (except for Small Wireless Facility applications), the city will act on the application within 90 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. For Small Wireless Facility applications, the city will act on the application within 60 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (4) Tier 3 processing time. For Tier 3 WCF Permit applications (except for Small Wireless Facility applications), the city will act on the application within 150 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. For Small Wireless Facility applications, the city will act on the application within 90 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. Not Yet Approved 8 (5) When Small Wireless Facility applications are filed in batches, the shot clock that applies to the batch is the same one that would apply had the applicant submitted individual applications. Should an applicant file a single application for a batch that includes both collocated and new construction of Small Wireless Facilities, the longer 90-day shot clock will apply. (56) Denial of application. If the city denies a WCF application, the city will notify the applicant of the denial in writing of the reasons for the denial. (f) Tier 1 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be final and shall not be appealable; (2) The Director shall grant a Tier 1 WCF Permit provided that the Director finds that the applicant proposes an eligible facilities request; (3) The Director shall impose the following conditions on the grant of a Tier 1 WCF Permit: (i) The proposed collocation or modification shall not defeat any existing concealment elements of the support structure; and (ii) The proposed WCF shall comply with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7), and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j). (g) Tier 2 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director, who may, in his or her sole discretion, refer an application to the Architectural Review Board. The Director's decision shall be appealable directly to the City Council. An appeal may be set for hearing before the City Council or may be placed on the Council's consent calendar, pursuant to the process for appeal of architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070(f). (2) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall grant a Tier 2 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and, the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all objective aesthetic standards published by the Director. If the Director has not published such standards, an application shall not be granted unlessand all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 2 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. (h) Tier 3 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director, who may, in his or her sole discretion, refer an application to the Architectural Review Board and/or Planning and Transportation Commission. The Director's decision shall be appealable directly to the City Council. An appeal may be set for hearing before the City Council or may be placed on the Not Yet Approved 9 Council's consent calendar, pursuant to the process for appeal of architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070(f). (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and, the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all objective aesthetic standards published by the Director, and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made. If the Director has not published objective aesthetic standards, an application shall not be granted unless all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 3 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. (i) Development Standards Except as otherwise provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards: (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; (3) Shall be screened from public view; (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and Not Yet Approved 10 (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. (j) Conditions of Approval In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all WCF Projects approved under this chapter, whether approved by the Director or deemed granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: (1) Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be subject to the conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as may be preempted by the Spectrum Act. (2) As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. (3) Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets FCC's standards. A report, certified by the engineer, of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance with the FCC's radio frequency emission standards shall be submitted to the Planning Division within one year of commencement of operation. (4) Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the city, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the city for its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The city may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant's expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. (5) Compliance with applicable laws. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Code, any permit issued under this Code, and all other applicable federal, state and local laws (including without limitation all building code, electrical code and other public safety requirements). Any failure by the City to enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all other applicable laws and regulations. (6) Compliance with approved plans. The proposed Project shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. (k) Removal of Abandoned Equipment A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases to be in use for more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, wireless communications service Not Yet Approved 11 provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the cessation of use of that WCF. A new WCF permit shall not be issued to an owner or operator of a WCF or a wireless communications service provider until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed. (l) Revocation The Director may revoke any WCF Permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any condition of the permit. The Director's decision to revoke a Permit shall be appealable pursuant to the process applicable to issuance of the Permit, as provided in subdivisions (f), (g), and (h) of this section. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Not Yet Approved 12 _____________________________ _______________________________ Deputy City Attorney Director of Planning & Community Environment