Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-06-12 City Council (8)
TO: City of Palo Alt City Manager’s: Report 9 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: JUNE 12, 2000 CMR:270:00 3000 El CAMINO REAL (99-PC-1; 99-EIA,22): PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONING DISTRICT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT APPLICATIONS BY WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS TO AMEND ZONING DISTRICT PC-2533 TO ALLOW BUILDING-MOUNTED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES. WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS’ PROPOSAL WOULD ALLOW UP TO 50 DISH-TYPE ANTENNAS, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, ATOP A 10-STORY, COMMERCIAL- OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND PAGE MILL ROAD (PALO ALTO SQUARE OFFICE PARK). A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES. RECOMMENDATION Staff, the Architectural Review Board, and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A), amending Planned Community (PC) Zoning District PC-2533 to allow building-mounted telecommunication facilities, and approve the Environmental Impact Assessment application (Attachment E) prepared for the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The approximately 10-acre project site is located at the southwest corner of E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The site is commonly known as the Palo Alto Square. office complex. Palo Alto Square consi.sts of six commercial-office buildings, including two 10- story office towers and a movie theater, which were constructed in the early 1970s. Palo Alto Square is owned by Equity Office Properties through a ground lease with Stanford Management Company. The site is surrounded by a variety of commercial and office land CMR:270:00 Page 1 of 3 uses, except for the parcel immediately to the north, across Page Mill Road, which ~is presently undeveloped and is designated for high-density residential use by both the City’s Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Maps. The Palo Alto Square site was rezoned from the C-3:S and L-M:S Zoning Districts to the PC Zoning District by Ordinance No. 2533 on September 22, 1969. This PC zoning designation established the allowable uses of the site, which include: financial services and banking, professional and administrative offices, restaurants, theaters, hotels, and commercial services in support of on-site uses. The Zoning Dist.rict was recently amended to allow child care facilities (fde number 99-PC-3, submitted by ChildrenFirst Inc.), which will be a permitted use within the Zoning District effective June 21, 2000. At present, telecommunication facilities, such as the one proposed by Winstar Communications, are not a permitted use within Zoning District PC~2533. If the attached ordinance is adopted amending Zoning District PC-2533, building-mounted telecommunication facilities will be permitted, subject to design approval by the Architectural Review Board. BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Architectural Review Board reviewed and recommended approval (4-0-0, Board member Peterson not participating) of the project, including Winstar’s specific design proposal (file number 99-ARB-127), on April 6, 2000. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on March 8 and May 10, 2000 and recommended (5-0-1 on March 8, Commissioner Cassell not participating, one vacancy; 5-0- 2 on May 10, Commissioners Cassell and Packer not participating) that the City Council approve the PC Zoning District amendment and EIA applications. The Commission also found that installing telecommunication facilities at this site, in the manner allowed by the ordinance, is a public benefit. Public benefit findings are included in Attachment F of this report. ATTACI-IMENTS. Attachment A: ’Proposed Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2533 Attachment B:Location Map Attachment C:Planning Division Staff Report, dated May 10, 2000 (includes April 6, 2000 Architectural Review Board Staff Report, March 8, 2000 Planning Division Staff Report, and minutes from the March 8, 2000 Planning Commission meeting). Attachment D:May 10, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment E:Environmental Impact Assessment Attachment F:PC Zoning District Public Benefit Findings Project plans (Council Members only) CMR:270:00 Page 2 of 3 Prepared By: Manager Review: Luke Connolly, Senior Planner Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: G. EDWARD G~~W~F Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: cc: Applicant Assistant City Manager CMR:270:00 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08 . 040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL COD~’~ (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE. CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF EL CAMINO REAL AND PAGE MILL ROAD KNOWN AS 3000 E1 CAMINO REAL (PALO ALTO SQUARE)FROM PC PLANNED COMMUNITY 2533 TO PC PLANNED COMMUNITY . The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: ~. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property at the intersection of E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road from PC Planned Community 2533(Office and Hotel Complex) to PC Planned Community . " The City Council hereby.finds that: (a) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held March __, 2000 has recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth.. (b) The proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. (c) Modification of the.existing PC Planned Community 2533 District to permit building-mounted telecommunications facilities on the site is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with existing and potential use on adjoining sites and in thegeneral vicinity. In particular: (i) Establishment .of building-mounted telecom- munication facilities in developmentssuch as Palo Alto Square. is supported by the following Comprehensive Plan Policies: ¯a. Business and Economics Policy B-13: Support the development of technologically-advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommunications industries. b. Business and Economics Policy B-14: Work With electronic information network providers to maximize potential benefits for PaloAlto businesses, schools, residences, and other potential users. 000302 ~n 0090450 5 (ii) Building-mounted telecommunications facil~tie~ are a conditionally permitted use in City zoningdistricts. Palo Alto Square.has buildings suitable for telecommunications facilities. ~LQ~_~.The Council.has reviewed and considered the proposed Negative Declaration, including the initial study, prepared for this project, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment, together with the comments received during the public review period. The City Council finds, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that the negative declaration reflects the independent judgement-of the City. The Negative Declaration is,hereby adopted. ~QT~£_~. Those certain plans entitled "Change from C-3:S .and L-M;S to P-C" a copy of which is on file with the Planning Division of the City, are made a part of this ordinance by this reference. SaidDevelopment Plan is approved pursuant to Section 18.68.070 of the Palo.Alto Municipal Code subject.to the following conditions: (a)Permitted Uses. (i) Financial services such as banks, brokerage firms, title companies, insurance firms..and similar uses. offices. (ii)Professional,administrative, and executive (iii)Restaurants and cocktail lounges. (iv) Theatres. (v) 300-guest room hotel including support facilities such as conference and banquet rooms. (vi) Commercial service facilities incidental to a major office andhotel complex such as barber shop, beauty salon, smoke.shop-newsstand, gift shop, .parking structure and similar uses for the convenience of the employees and visitors to the complex. Major retail or commercial services to serve the community at large shall not be permitted. (vii) Buildinu-mounted telecommunicationsfacilities. provided that the d~siqn of the DroDosed facility is approved by the Director of. Planninq and Community Dev~loDment after review and 90nsideration by the Architectural Review Board. 000302 sy~ 0090450 (b)Improvements: (i) Buildings, offstreet parking, landscaping including planting spaces within and immediately adjacent to the park~.cg area to accommodate a minimum of 400 trees, and other improvements shall. be substantially as shown on the approved Development Plan. (ii) The office tower buildings shall not. exceed 100,000 square feet of .net rentable floor area in each and I0 stories and 159 feet in height. (iii)The one and two-story buildings shall not exceed a total of 85,000 square feet of .net rentable floor area with 65,000 square feet to be on the ground floor. (iv) The hotel shall not exceed 17 stories, plus roof lounge and 176 feet in height. (v) Vehicle ingress and egress to E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road shall be. substantially as shown on the approved Development Plan minus the egress driveway on E1 Camino Real nearest Page Mill Road and. except for revisions as may be required by the State Division of Highways, the County of Santa Clara Department of PublicWorks, and the Cityof Palo Alto Department of Public Works. (vi) Acceleration and/or deceleration lanes shall be provided as required by the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara and State of California. provided. (vii)No less than 1650 parking spaces shall be (c)Development Schedule. (i)Start of construction within 18 months of October 22, 1969. (ii) Completion of all.construction and development within 3 years of start of construction. // // // // // 000302 syn 0090450 3 7 ~. This ordinance shall be effective on th~ thirty-first day.after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 000302 syn 0090450 Attachment B Palo A1 to ?LANN|NO File No(s): 99-PC-2; 99-EIA-22; 99-ARB-127 Proposed Action: Amend existing PC Zoning District to allow bUilding-mounted telecommunication facilities DaLe: 1/6/2000 " O~o, Attachment C PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Agenda Date:May 10, 2000 To:Planning Commission From:Luke Connolly, Senior Planner Department:Planning Subject:-3000 El Camino Real, Winstar Communications (.99-PC-1; 99-EIA- 22): Planned Community (PC) Zoning District and Environmental Imp.act Assessment applications by Winstar Communications to amend Zoning District PC-2533 to allowbuilding-mounted telecommunications facilities. Winstar Communications’ proposal would allow up to 50 dish-type antennas, and associated equipment, atop a 10-story, commercial-office building located at the southwest corner of E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road (Palo Alto Square). A Negative Declaration has been circulated for this. project in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Architectural Review Board recommend that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approve the proposed Planned Community (PC) Zoning District amendment and Environmental Impact Assessment applications. The Planning Commission previously reviewed this proposal on March 8, 2000 and recommended approval of staffs recommendation, listed above. The Commission further requested that the project be placed on the Consent Calendar when it returned for their review, subsequent to the Architectural Review Board’s review and recommendation. The Architectural Review Board reviewed the project, including Winstar’s specific design proposal (file 99-ARB-127), on April 6, 2000. The Board-recommended approval of the proposal in accordance with staff’s recommendation. City of Palo Alto Page 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : The 9.86-acre project site is located at the southwest corner of E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road and is commonly known as the Palo Alto Square office complex.. Palo Alto Square is presently developed withsix commercial-office buildings, including two 10-story office towers and a movie theater, which were constructed in the early 1970s under the existing PC zoning. The site is owned by Equity Office Properties through a ground lease with Stanford Management. The site is surrounded by commercial and office-research and development land uses, except for the parcel immediately to the north, across Page Mill Road, which is presently undeveloped and is designated for high-density residential use by both the City’s Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Maps. The applicant, Winstar Communications, is proposing to construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facility atop the 10-story building nearest Page Mill Road (Tower One). Since the site’s existing PC zoning does not .allow the operation of telecommunications facilities, Winstar has submitted the subject PC zoning amendment. application which would add building-mounted telecommunications facilities to the district’s allowable uses. Winstar has also submitted an application to the Architectural ¯ Review Board (file number 99-ARB-127) for the specific design of the project. As proposed, Winstar’s facility would consist of up to 50 dish-type antennas mounted to the penthouse/equipment enclosure of Tower One. The antennas measure approximately 24 inches in diameter and, when mounted, would project approximately 30 inches from the face of the penthouse. Antennas are proposed on all four sides of the penthouse and would be shielded from view by a fiberglass screen painted and finished to match the existing structure. The intent of the screen is to give the appearanceof an .expanded . penthouse structure. The facility also includes a rooftop equipment shelter, measuring 20 feet by 28 feet; its height would not exceed that of the existing penthouse. Winstar’s telecommunications facility is designed to provide network wireless services for voice,. data, and videO information, unlike conventional-telecommunications infrastructure (i.e., monopoles; cellular telephone facilities) that solely provides wireless telephone service. The proposed page Mill Road site will act as a "hub" to serve other client.sites in the area. BACKGROUND The Palo Alto Square site was rezoned from "C-3:S" and "L-M:S" Zoning Districts to the Planned Community Zoning District by Ordinance No. 2533 on September 22, 1969. This PC zoning designation has remained in effect.since that time. Ordinance No. 2533 enumerates the allowable uses ofthe site, which include: financial services and.banking, professional and administrative offices, restaurants, theaters, hotels and ~upport facilities, and commercial services in support of on-site uses. As noted, any land use, such as Winstar’s building-mounted telecommunications facility, proposed for the Palo Alto Square site not already allowed by the ordinance requires-an amendment to the PC Zoning District. ~e~City of Palo Alto Page 2 POLICY IMPLICATIONS " " ~ The proposed PC zoning amendment is consistent with the Policies, Programs, .and text of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies specifically relevant to the project are noted below: ¯Policy B~13: Support the development of technologically advanced communications infras.tructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommunications industries. ¯Policy B-14: Work with electronic information network providers to maximir.e potential benefits for Palo Alto businesses, schools, residences,, and other potential users. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Given the technology being used and the range of telecommunications services that Winstar’s faciliv.? is designed to provide, the facility must be established ata location that provides consi¢terable height and line-of-sight to client locations. -At 10 stories, Tower One at Palo Alto Square is among the tallest structures in the City; the existing penthouse/equipment enclosure is approximately 140 feet above grade. The key issue in locating any type of equipment atop a prominent structure, such as Tower One, is the visual appearance of such equipment. As proposed, all of the dish antennas .(up to 50 individual antennaswould be allowed, fewer may be needed) would be hidden behind a fiberglass screen that matches the building and penthouse, and the proposed equipment cabinet .would be below the height of the existing penthouse. While the addition of the new telecommunications equipment will alter"Tower One’s appearance, it will not constitute a major physical change and the telecommunications use itself is an ancillary one to those primarily undertaken on the site. Moreover, the proposed design of the project was approved by the Architectural Review Board. Architectural Review Board approval would be required for any subsequently proposed telecommunications facilities as well .within the PC Zoning District, if amended. This report does not include amendment to established PC district. a "public benefit" find’rag as the project involves an Zoning District, rather than the establishment of a new TIMELINE The project was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 8, 2000 and by the Architectural Review Board on April 6, 2000. Subsequent to this Planning Commission meeting, the project is tentatively scheduled for a final determination by the City Council on June 5, 2000. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As part of the Environmental Impact Assessment application submitted for this project, an Initial Study was prepared and a Negative Declaration will be issued in accordance with " CEQA Guidelines. A Negative Declaration was circulated for public review on February City of Palo Alto Page -17, 2000. The .public review .period for the Negative Declaration closed on. March 7, 2000. No public comments were received during this time period. PUBLIC NOTICE Public. notice of. this project was provided by. publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation and via mailed notifications to surrounding, property owners .and occupants within 300 feet of the site. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Proposed Ordinance ameriding Ordinance No. 2533 Attachment B: Location Map Attachment C: Planning Division Staff Report, March 8, 2000 Attachment D: Architectural Review Board Staff Report (includes Planning Commission minutes from.March 8, 2000 and Environmen.tal Impact Assessment), ¯ April 6, 2000 ¯ Project plans (Planning Commissioners 0nly) Prepared By:Luke Connolly, Senior Planner Manager Review: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT/DMSION I-IEAD APPROVAL:. LISk G~tO~E¯ Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 4 ARCI TECTURAL REVIEW BOARIY STAFF REPORT Agenda Date:April 6, 2000 To: From: Subject: Architectural Review. Board Luke Connolly, Senior Planner Department: Planning. and Community Environment 3000 ElCamino Real, Winstar Communications (99-PC-1; 99- ARB. -127; 99-EIA-22): Planned Community (PC) Zoning District, Architectural Review Board, and Environmental Impact Assessment applications by Wfi~star Communications to amend Zoning District ¯ PC-2533 to allow building-mounted telecommunication facilities. Winstar Communications’ specific proposal would allow up to 50 dish-type antennas, and associated equipment, atop a 10-story, commercial-office building .located at .the southwest corner of t~l Camino Real and Page Mill Road .(Palo Alto Square). A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend City Council approval of the Planned Community (PC) Zoning District amendment and Initial Study/Negative Declaration applications. Staff additionally recommends ARB itpprova! of Winstar Communications’ telecommunicatiom project (99-ARB-127)based upon the findings in Attachment A and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment B. The Planning Commission reviewed the subject PC Zoning and EIA applications at their Regular Meeting on March 8~ 2000. The Planning Commission concurred with staff’s recommendation that Zoning District PC-2533 should be amended to allow building- mounted telecommunication facilities as a permitted land use subject to design approval of the facilities by the ARB. S:PlargPladiv/ARB/Reports/3000EICaminoWinstarARB Page 1 ¯’l 5 PROJECT DESC~ON :. Planned Community Zoning Amendment The 9.86-acre project site is located at the southwest comer of E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road and is commortly .known as the Palo Alto Square office complex. Palo Alto Square is presently developed with six commercial-office buildings, including two 10-story office towers and a movie theater, which were constructed in the early 1970s under the existing PC zoning. The site is owned by Equity Office Properties through a ground lease with Stanford Management. The site is surrounded by commercial and office-research and development land uses, except for the parcel immediately to the north, across Page Mill Road, which is presently undeveloped and is designated for high-density residential use by both the City’s Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Maps. The applicant, Winstar Communications, is proposing to construct and operate a wireless telecommunication facility atop the 10-story building nearest Page Mill Road (Tower One). Since the site’s existing PC zoning does not allow the operation of such facilities, Winstar has submitted the subject PC zoning amendment application, which would add building- mounted telecommunication facilities to the district’s allowable uses.. Should the zoning amendment be adopted by the City Council, building-mounted telecommunicationfacilities would be permitted subject to design review and recommendation by the Architectural. Review Board and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment.. Winstar Communications’ Proposal As proposed, whastar~s telecommunication facility would consist of up. to 50 dish-type. antennas mounted to the .penthouse/equipment enclosure of Tower One. The antennas measure approximately 24 inches in diameter and, when mounted, would project approximately 30 inches from the face of the penthouse. Antennas are proposed on all four sides of the penthouse and would be shielded from view by a fiberglass screen painted and finished to match the existing equipment penthouse. The intent of the screen is to give the. appearance of an expanded penthouse structure. The facility also includes a rooftop equipment shelter, measuring 20 feet by 28 feet; its height would not exceed that of the existing penthouse. Winstar’s telecommunication facility is designed to provide network wireless services for voice, data, and video information, unlike conventional telecommunications infrastructure (i.e., monopoles; cellular telephone facilities) that solely provide wireless telephone service. The proposed Page Mill Road site will act as a ."hub" to serve other client sites in the area. BACKGROUND " The Palo Alto Square site was rezoned from the then "C-3:S" .and "L-M:S" Zoning Districts to the Planned Community Zoning District by Ordinance No. 2533 on September 22, 1969. This PC zoning designation hag remained in effect since that time. Ordinance S:Pl~n/Pladiv/ARB/Reports/3000EICaminoWinstarARB Page 2 No. 2533 enumerates the.allowable uses of the site, which include: financial services ~d . banking, professional and administrative offices, restaurants, theaters, hotels and support facilities, and commercial services in support of on-sit~ uses. As noted, any land use, such. as Winstar’s telecommunication facility, not already allowed by the ordinance requires an amendment to the PC Zoning District. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project site is designated "Research/Office Park" on the city’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Circulation Map and the proposed PC zoning amendment is consistent with the Policies, Programs, and text of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies specifically relevant to the project are noted below: Policy B-13: Support the developmen~ of technologically advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommunications industries. Policy B-14: Work with electronic information network provi~lers to maximize potential benefits for Palo Alto businesses, schools, residences, and other potential users. ’ " SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES- Given the technology being used and the range of telecommunications services that Winstar’s facility is designed to provide, the facility must be established at a location that provides considerable height and line-of-sight to client locations. At 10 stories, Tower One at Palo Alto Square is among the tallest structures in the City; the existing penthouse/equipment enclosure is approximately 140 feet above grade~ The key issue in locating any type of equipment atop a prominent structure, such as Tower One, is the visual appearanceof such equipment. As proposed, all of the dish antennas (up to 50 individual antennas would be allowed, fewer may be needed) Would be hidden behind a fiberglass screen designed to match the building and penthouse, The proposed equipment cabinet. would also be below the height of the existing penthouse. While the addition of the new telecommunications equipment will alter Tower One,s appearance, it will not constitute a ¯ major physical change and the telecommunications use itself is largely an ancillary one to those primarily undertaken on the site. .This report does not include a "public benefit" fmding as the project involves an amendment to established. PC Zoning District, rather than the establishment of a new district. ., TIM~ELINE Following review and recommendation by the ARB, the PC zorfiag..amendment is S :Plan/Pladiv/AR.B/P, eports/3000EICamino WinstarAR.B Page tentatively scheduled for .further review by the Planning Commission on-May 1(~, 200~.. A final determination by the City Council is scheduled for June 5, 2000. E~ONMENTA.t, REVmW As part of the Environmental Impact Assessment application submitted for this project, an Initial Study was prepared and a Negative Declaration was issued in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. The Negative Declaration was circulated for public review on February 17, 2000. The punic review period for the Negative Declaration closed on March 7, 2000. Public comments were no.t received during this time period nor.were any comments expressed at the initial public hearing on the project held by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC NOTICE .Public notice of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation and via mailed notifications to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site. COURTESY COPIES Timothy Richardson, Project Manager Kukulica & Associates 11750 Dublin Blvd,., Suite 106A Dublin, CA 94568 Stanford Management, 2770 Sand Hill Road Palo Alto, .CA 94025 ATTACtt NTS Attachment A: ARB Standards for Review/Findings for Approval Attachment B: Conditions of Approval Attachment C: Proposed Ordinance nine.riding Ordinance No. 2533 Attachment. D) Attachment D: Planning Division Staff Report, March 8, 2000 Attachment E: Planning Commission Minutesl March 8, 2000 Attachment F: Enviromental Impact Assessment (EIA)/Negative Declaration Attachment G: Location Map (included in Attachment D). Project plans (Harming Commissioners only) (included Prepared By:Luke Connolly, Senior Plarme/ Manager Review: Ray Hashimoto, Zoning Administrator ~S:PI .ap/Pladiv/ARB/Rep°rts/3000EICamin°WinstarARB Page 4 ATTACHNI~NT A ARB STANDARDS FOR REVIEW/FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3000 El Camino Real, Winstar Communications. 99-ARB-127 The design .and architecture of the.proposed building-mounted telecommunication facility .furthers the goals and purposes of the Architectural Review Ordinance since the improvements comply with the "Standards for Review" as specified in Section 16.48.120 of the Municipal Code. The design of the proposal is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. As noted in the staff report, the project is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies B-13 and B-14, which promote the growth and technological improvement of telecommunications infrastructure throughout the City. (ARB Standard #al) The design of the project is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the proposed telecommunication facility will not alter the existing structure’s overall design, but will blend with the structure’s appearance. (ARB Standard #a2) The design is appropriate to the function of the project since ancillary equipment ’ of this nature is typic.ally located within a screened roof-top enclosure, as proposed by the applicant. (ARB Standard #a3) The materials, textures, colors, details of construction, and plant material proposed are appropriate expression to the design and function of the site, and are compatible .with the. adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements, and functions in that all proposed telecommunications equipment will be hidden from view .behind an architecturally compatible screen that blends with the existing building both in terms of color and texture. (ARB Standard #a12) ARB Standards #a4 through #al 1 and #a13 through #a15 are not applicable to the subject proposal. S:Plart/Pladiv/ARB/Reports/~000EICaminoWinstarARB Page 5 .~ CONDITIONS: ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3000 El Camino Real, Wnstar Communications 99-ARB-127 Planning Division The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans entitled, "A Project for: Winstar Communications Inc., Location: 3000 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA," dated July 6, 1999, prepared by Carter& Burgess, Inc., and approved by the Director of Planning at~,d Community Environment. Any subsequent modifications tothe project are subject to review and approval by the Director of " Planning and Community Environment. When the facility i§ de-commissioned, or otherwise rendered obsolete, from the larger telecommunications network, all equipment shall be removed from the building. Removal 0f such equipment shall within 30 days of cessation of use. 3.The entire equipment penthouse shall be painted uniformly to ensure that thepaint blends for all structural elementsaffected by the project. 4.The project shall comply with all relevant FCC and CPUC regulations regarding telecommunication facilities. Fire Department 5.All standard fasteners shall be consistent with the requirements~of Chapter 16 of the California Building Code. Utilities Department Should the project generate, additional electri~al service needs, then plans, load calculations, and electrical 0ne-line diagrams shall be provided to the Utilities Electrical Engineering Division for review and approval. S:Plan/Pladiv/ARB/Reports/3000EICaminoWinstarAKB ¯Page 6 PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Age~tda Date: To: March 8, 2000 Planning Commission From: Subject: Luke Connolly, Senior Planner Department:Planning 3000 El Camino Real, Winstar Commtmications (99-PC-1; 99-EIA- 22): Plalmed Community (PC) Zoldng District and Enviromental Impact Assessment applicatiom by Wimtar Communications to amend Zoning District PC-2533 to allow building-mounted telecommunications facilities. Wimtar Commurticatiolas’ proposal would allow up to 50 dish-type antennas, and associated equipment, atop a 10-story, commercial-office budding located at the southwest comer of E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road (Palo Alto Square). :An Architectural Review Board application (99-ARB. -127) has also been filed for the specific design .of the project. A Negative. Declaration Ires been circulated for this project in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION . . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of th~ Planned Community (PC) Zoning District amendment and Environmental Impact Assessment applications. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 9.86-acre project site~ is located at the southwestcome~ of E1 Camino Real and Page Miil Road’and is commonly known as the Palo Alto Square office complex. Palo Alt0 Square is presently developed with six c0mmercial-office buildings, including two 10-story office towers and a movie theater, which were comtructed in the early 1970s under the existing PC zoning. The site is owned by Equity Office Properties through a ground lease S :Plan:Pladiv:PCSK:3000ECKwinstar Page I with Stanford University. Thesite is sm’rounded by commercial and office-research and development land uses, except -for the parcel immediately to S.he north~ ac~’oss Page Mill Road, which is presently undeveloped and is designated for ]dgh-density residential use by both the City’s Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Maps. The applicant, Winstar Communications, is proposing to construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facility atop the 10-stor~ building nearest Page Mill Road (Tower One). Since the site’s existing PC zoning does not allow the operation of telecomm~m~cations facilitiesi Winstar has submitted the subject. PC zoning amendment application which would add bullding-mounte~l telecommuu~cafions _~,c~lltles to the district’s allowable uses. Winstar has also submitted an apphcati0n to the Architectural ¯ Review Board (t’fie number 9~-ARB-I27) for the specific design of the project. ¯ As proposed, Winstar’s facility would consist of up to 50 dish-type antennas mounted to the penthouse/equipment enclosure of Tower One. The antennas measure approximately 24 inches in diameter and, when mounted, would project approximately 30 inches from the face of the penthouse.. Antennas are proposed on all four sides of the penthouse and ..... -would-be- shielded-fromview-by-a-fiberglass,screen--pa~uted-and-fmished--to-matoh-..the ........... existing structure.. The intent Of the .screen is to give the appearance of an expanded penthouse structure. The facility.also includes a rooftop equipment shelter, measuring.20 feet by 28 feet; its height would not exceed that of the existing penthouse. Winstar’s telecommunications facility .is designed to provide network wireless services for voice, data, and video information, unlike conventional telecommunications infrastructure (i.e., monopoles; cellular telephone facilities) that solely provides wireless telephone service. ¯ " The proposed page Mill Road .~ite will act as a "hub" to serve other client sites in the area. .BACKGROIJND , .. .The Palo Alto Square site was rezoned from the-then "C-3:S" and ."L-M:S" Zoning Dis1:dcts to the Planned Community Zoning District by Ordinance No. 2533 on September 22, 1969. This PC zoning designation has remained in effect since that time. Ordinance No. 2533 enumerates the allowable uses of the site, which include: financial services and banking, professional and a~trative offices, restaurants, theaters., hotels and support facilities, and commercial services in support of on-site uses. As noted, any land use, such as Winstar’s building-mounted telecommunications facility, proposed for the Palo Alto Square site not already, allowed by the ordinance requires, an amendment to the PC Zoning District. -- POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed PC zoning amendment is consistent with the Policies, Program~, and text of the Corn~rehensive Plan. Policies specifically relevant to the p~oject are noted below: ~:PlanlPladiv]PCSR~3000ECB.winstar Page 2. Poli~y B-13: . Support the development of technologically advanced communicatior~ infrastructure and other improv.ements that will facilitate thegrowth of emerging telecommunications indus:tries. Policy B-14: Work with electronic information network providers to maximize potential beneflts for Palo Alto businesses, schools, residences, and other potential users. S~Y OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Given the technology being used and the range of telecommunications servicesthat Winstar’s facility is designed to provide, the fac.ility must be established at a location that provides considerable height and line-0f-sight to client locations. At 10 stbries, Tower One at Palo Alto Square is among the tallest structures in the City;. the existing penthouse/equipment enclosure is approximately 140 feet above grade. The key issue .in locating any type of equipment Stop a prominent structure, such as Tower One, is the visual appearance of such equipmen(. As proposed, all of the dish antennas (up to 50 individual . antennas would be allowed, ’ fewer may be ineeded)would be hidden behind a fiberglass screen that matches thebuilding and p~nthouse, and the proposed equipment cabinet would ¯ be below, the height ofthe .-existing-penthouser--W-~tile-the--addi~ion-of-the-new .... telecommunications equipment will alter Tower One’s appearance,, it will not constitute a major physical change and the telecommunications use itself is largely an ancillary one to those primarily undertaken on the site. Moreover, the final design of the project is subject to review and approval of the Architectural. Review Board: Architectural Review Board ¯ approval would be required for any subsequently proposed telecommunications, facilities as . well within the PC Zoning District, if amended. This report does not include a "public benefit" fmding as the project involves, an amendment to established PC Zoning District, rather than the establishment of a new district. ¯ TIMELINE Following this Planning Commission hearing, the project is tentatively s~heduled for review by the Architectural Review Board. on April 6, 2000. Subsequent to ARB review, the project.is tentatively scheduled for further review by the Planning Commission on May 10, 2000, and for a final determination by the City Council on-Iune 5, 2000. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .As part of the Environmental Impact Assessment application .submitted for this project, an Initial-Study was prepared and a Negative Declaration was issued, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. A Negative Declaration was circulated for public review on February 17, 2000. The public review period for the Negative Declaration dosed on March 7, 2000~ No public comments were received during this time period. S:PlanlPladivlPCSRl3000ECRwinstar PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of this project was provided by publication of. the agenda ha a local" newspaper of general circulation and via mailed notifications to surrounding property .owners and 0ceupants within 300 feet of the site. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Proposed Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2533 Attachment B: Location Map ¯ Project plans (Planning Commissioners only) Prepared By:Luke Connolly, Senior Planner ¯ Manager Review: Ray Hashlmoto, Zoning Admi~trator DEPARTMENTfDMSION HEAD APPROVAL: LISA GROTE Chief Planning Official S:PlanlPladivlPCSP,]3000ECRwinstar Page 4 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING ~ SECTION 18 . 08. 040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE .ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF .PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF EL CAMINO REAL AND PAGE MILL ROAD KNOWN AS 3000 E1 CAMINO REAL (PALO ALTO SQUARE)FROM PC PLANNED COMMUNITY 2533 TO PC PLANNED COMMUNITY . The Council of the City of- Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: ~. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended.by changing the.zoning of certai~ property at the intersection of E1 Camino Real and.Page Mill Road from PC Planned Community 2533(Office and Hotel Complex)’ to PC Planned Community . The City Council hereby finds that: (a) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed .public hearing held March__, 2000 has recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map)~ of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth. .. (b) The proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote.the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. .. -.. (c) Modification of theexisting PC Planned. Community 2533 District to permitbuilding-mounted telecommunications. ~acilities-. on thesite is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with existing and potential use on adjoining sites and in the general vicinity. In particular: (i) Establishment of building-mounted telecom- munication facilities in developments such as Palo Alto Square is supported by the following Comprehensive Plan’Policies:- a. Business and Economics Policy B-13:. Support the .development of technologically-advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate .the growth of emerging telecommunications industries~ b. Business and Economics Policy B-14: Work with electroni6 information network providers to maximize potential benefits for. Palo Alto businesses, schools, residences, and other potential users. 000302 S~n 0090450 1 (ii) Building-mounted telecommunications faciiities are a conditionally permitted use in City zoning districts. Palo Alto Square has buildings suitable for telecommunications facilities. ~LC~T~9~_~.The Council has reviewed and considered the propqsed Negative Declaration,. including the initial study, prepared for this project, on file with the Dep~rtment of Planning and "Community Environment, together with the comments, received during the public review period. The ~it~ Council finds, on. the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have-a significant effect on the environment. The Cit9 Council further finds that the negative declaration reflects the independent judgement .of the City. The Negative Declaration is hereby adopted. ~J~_~. Those certain plans entitled "Change from. C-3:S and L-M;S to P-C~’ a copy of which is on file withthe Planning .Division of the City, are made a part of this ordinance by this reference. SaidDevelopment "Plan is approved pursuant to. Section 18.68.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code subject to the following conditions: (a) Permitted Uses. (i) Financial services such as banks, brokerage firms, title companies, insurance firms.and similar uses. (ii) Professional,.administrative, and executive offices. (iii)Restaurants and cocktail ~-ounges-. (iv) Theatres, (v) 300-~est room hotel including support facilities such as conference and banquet rooms. (vi) Commercial service facilities incidental to a major office and hotel.complex such as barber shop, beauty sa!on, smoke shop-newsstand, gift shop, parking structure and similar uses for the convenienc~ of the employees and visitors to the complex. Major retail or commercial services to serve the communi%y at large shall not be permitted. (vii) Buildina-m0unted telecommunications facilities, provided that the desiun of the proposed facilitY is aDDrOV@d bV ~he Director of Planning and Community Development after review and consideration bv the Architectural Review Board.. 000302 syn 0090450 2 (b)Improvementsl ’(i) Buildings, offst~eet parking, landscaping including planting spaces within and immediately adjacent-to the parking, area to accommodate a minimum of 400 trees, and other improvements shall be substantially as shown on the approved Development Plan. (ii) The office tower buildings shall not exceed 100,000 square feet of net rentable floor area in each and i0 stories and 159 feet in height (iii)The one and two-story buildings shall not exceed a total of 85;000 square feet of net rentable floor area with 65,000 square feet to be on the ground floor. (iv) The hotel shall not exceed 17 sto~ies, plus roo~ lounge and 176 feet in height. (v) Vehicle ingress and egressto E1 Camino Re~l and Page Mill Road shall be substantially as shown on the approved Development Plan minus the egress driveway on E1 Camino Real nearest Page Mill Road and except for. revisions, as may be~required by the ~State Division of Highways, the County of Santa Clara Department of Public Works, and the City of Palo Alto Department ofl Public Works. (vi) Acceleration and/or deceleration lanes shall be provided as required by the City of .Palo Alto,-. County of Santa Clara and State of California. provided. (vii)No less than 1650 parki-ng spaces shall be (c)Development Schedul%. (i)Start of construction within 18 months of October 22, 1969. (ii) Completion of all.construction and development within 3 years of start of construction. // /! // /! // 000302 s~n 0090450 3 ~LQ~__~. This ordinance shall be~ effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager. Director of Planning and .Community Environment 000302 ~n 0090450 Attachment B Palo AI to .. 99.-PC-2; .99-EIA-22; 99-ARB-127 ... Amend existing P’C Zoning District to allow btJilding-mounted telecommunication facilities 2oo’ L00’ 29 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 2 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 ROLL C~LL: 7:30 PM March 8, 2000 REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1;’.Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Commissioners: Kathy Schmidt, Chair Annette Bialson, Vice-Chair Jon Schink Patrick.Butt Owen Byrd Phyllis Cassel Staff.. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Wynne Furth, Senior Asst. City Attorney Carl Yeats, Administrative Services Director June Fleming, City Manager Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary Steve Montano, Sr. Financial Analyst Lalo Perez, Budget Manager Chairman Schmidt: I’d like to call the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting to order for March 8, 2000. Would the Secretary please call the roll. " The fu’st item on the agenda is Oral Communications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation ofthxee (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak mustcomplete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Harming and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chairman Schrnidt: .I have no cards for Oral Communications. That brings us to Agenda, Changes, Additions and Deletions and we have none. ¯A GENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONSAND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added tO it up until 72 hours prior to the meeting time. City of Palo Alto Page 1 31 1 2 3 4 .¯ 5 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 the ~onstruction of a complex of two residences on two adjacent parcels having a combined total are of approximately 3.2 acres within the Open Space Zoning District. The primary residence is a 13,400 square foot single-family residence, including a three- car garage plus five uncovered parking spaces, and site improvements including a lap ’ pool, turning court and terrace areas, for 15,063 square feet of impervious area (building and paving combined). The guest house is a 3,359 square foot single-family residence, including a four car garage plus two uncovered parking spaces, and site improvements including a P0ol, turning court and terrace areas, for 10,203 square feet of impervious area (building and paving combinrdi. Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been prepared, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. This project has been tentatively scheduled to return to the A r chitec, tm:al_Ke, vAe~_Boar.d_for_~nbli e h earing.on.Maxch_l.6.~2OO0 _and_tentati-v~l~ scheduled for a public hearing with the City Council on April 17, 2000. 15 16 17 18 19 ,20 21 22 23 Chairman Schrniclt: The Staff is recommending that we postpone the Planning Commission review and public hearing of this item to the Plan_ning Commission meeting of March 29, 2000. There was an error in the newspaper publication ofthePublic Hearing for this item. That is why the Staff is recommending this. Any questions or do I have a motion to postpone this until March 29, 2000. Commissioner Bialson: I move to postpone this until MarCh 29, 2000. Chairman Sehmidt: Is there a second? 24 25 Commissioner Cassel: Second. 26 27 28 29 30 31 Chairman Schmidt: It has been moved by Annette and seconded by Phyllis that we postpone this. item, 3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive to the Plamfng Commission meeting of March 29, 2000. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) All those opposed say no. That passes unanimously. The next item is 3000 El Camino R.eal. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 3~3000 El Camino Real* (File Nos: 99-PC-1~ 99-ARB-1271 99-EIA-22): Planned Community (PC) Zone .amendment, Architectural Review Board, and Environmental Impact Assessment applications by Winstar Communications for a building-mounted telecommunications facility consisting of up to 50 dish-type antennae and associated equipment. All proposed telecommunications equipment would be attached to the roof- top of an existing 10-story, commercial’office building located.at the southwest comer of E1 Camino Keal and Page Mill Koad (Palo Alto Square office park). Environmental Assessment: an initial study has been completed mad a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance wi~ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ’ requirements. Zoning District: PC-2533.. Commissioner Cassel: I’ll have to step down £om this meeting: I have a conflict of interest. My husband work~ for Stanford which owns the property. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 6 8 9 10 11 Chairman Schmidt: Thank you Phyllis. Could we have Staff comments onthis please? Mr. Luke.Connoll¥, Senior Planner: .Thank you. There is no additional Staff report for this item. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of this PC Zone amendment and Environmental Impact Assessment application. We do have an applicant here tonight that even though this is a zone change that would allow building mounted telecommunications facilities within the zoning district there is a specific proposal and an ARB application is already on. file for that. Tim Richardson representing the applicant would be giving the presentation tonight on what this facility will look like..That concludes Staff’s report. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ..... -op en-the-pabt-ie-p orC-ion-of-th, e-p ~otie-hearir, g an~a=~, from the applicant representative, Tim Richardson. Mr. Timothy Richardson, 11750 Dublin~ Dub|in: Basically what the site will ¯look like is we will incorporate antennas into the penthouse of the building. We’ll screen those antennas with the fiberglass radio-friendly material. Luke actually has a simulation of what the site will look like. We are doing these all overthe country and we always screen them so they will incorporate into the architectural design of the building. What this technology is is basically you see a lot of advertisement and news reports, on broad-band telecommunications, Winstar is actually in the market of selling broad-band telecommurdeations. Basically how it operates is through the combination of fiber and wireless antennas combined to offer businesses alternatives to the traditional way of receiving and transmitting data. At this particular site, we call it a hub site, it would consist of up to 50 24’inch in diameter antenna dishes. One~ the site is built Winstar sales reps will go out in the immediate area and offer the services to businesses in the area. It is not for residential uses. It is for small to medium size businesses who are looking fo~ alternative ways of transmitting and receiving data transmissions. Mr. Cortnolly: IfI could just clarify, those photos that are going around show what the facility would look like with screening and without. They are moekups.ofhowthey would show on the penthouse at the comer of Page Mill and El Camino. Chairman Schrrfidt: Are there questions for the applicant? I have a question on how they will look but I think I will be able to tell in a moment. My question is that the screening is proposed as part of your proposal and even though it would appear that on the drawings that were part our packet they are not shown screened? -Mr. Richardson: Right. The screening came as a result of Staff saying you’ll never get this through unless you screen it. That is our proposal for screening the antenna dishes. ChairmanSchmidt: Okay. Then the screening obviously does not harm the use of the antenna. Ci.tv of Palo Alto Page 6 33 ! 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 ]0 11 13 14 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 30 31 32 33 34 3"/ 38 39 40 41 42 43 Mr. Richardson: Right. We will use radio friendly materials. Materials that will allow Us transmit and receive dam. It would be a fiberglass material for that particular site. Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Do you plan to put all 50 antenna on initially? Mr. Richardson: No, actually we always request up to 50 just in case five years from now the site is really up and nmning and we have such a high demand.. More likely it will start with 28 to 30 antennas. Chairman Schmidt: Will you put up the screening around the entire penthouse to start out with? Chairman Schmidt: Would.you have future plans for possibly expanding tO the other tail - buildings on that site? Mr. Richardsoni On that site because of the proximity we would not have to d~ that. Just one site would be free. Chairman Sehmidt: Okay. Annette. Commissioner Bialson: Where else do you have an array of antennas such as this? Anything in the proximate communities? ¯ Mr. Richardson: Actually we are in the process of building some sites that have already been approved by other cities. For example, we are building a couple of sites in San Jose but we have not actually totally completed any sites yet. We are in the process of building some sites in the City of San Francisco right now too. Commissioner Bialson: So Palo Alto will be the only community between San Jose and San Francisco at this point in time, is that correct? Mr. Richardson: Right now, yes. Actually we will probably have sites finished before we go through the whole zoning process for this particular site. So within the next couple of months we should have some sites finished. Commissioner Bialson: Where else have you built these? Los Angeles? Mr. Richardson:. Actually, all the major cities in the United States we have the right to build these particular sites. We also have some sites up andrunning on the East Coast. Commissioner Bialson: Have you received any comments or complaintsabout the effect on the community with regard to these antenna? Did you get any discussions with regard to other appearance other interference with other modes of communications as a result Of these antenna being put up? City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 .45 Mr. Richardson: No we have not. Actually most people don’t even .know they are there unless we go out and tell them that behind that screening are antenna dishes. " Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Pat. Commissioner Burr: Do you lease this space from the building owner or from a tenant? Mr. Richardson: From the building owner. Commissioner Burr: Thank you. Chairman Schrnidt: Any other questions for the applicant? Then lets proceed with the public hearing. We have a card from one member of the public, Herb Borock. Mr. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. This is the second application in this location for an amendment to a PC zone. Previously there was a childcare use that was proposed that the Commission heard that the Council has not yet had an opportunity to have a public.hearing on. At the time that item was before the CommiSsion I expressed my concern about the planning process for amending Planned Community Zones. In particular the Staff interpretation that these Planned Community Zones that existed prior to the 1978 Zoning Code could be amended by changing uses without providing.public benefit as required by the. current Code. Normally when zoning regulations change if it’s the intent of the legislative body. in this case the Council to provide special provisions for pre-existing sites. Those .provisions are included in the site development regulations. When the 1978 Code was adopted there were provisions included for minor amendments. In that case those involved ones that required no change of use and no change in structures. I have to -conclude that there is no legislative authority for changing uses outside of the existing Planned Community Zone site development regulations. Once you start down this road it is difficult to say where you draw the line otherwise. This same landownerhas a site up on Arastradero Road that had a Planned Community Zone for hundreds of thousands of square feet of buildings which are not there now. Can they now amend that PC without providing a public benefit? There is a site at Alma Plaza that at one time had a larger amount of land when that PC was granted. Now that it has a different land configuration of less acreage, can they go through the same process? That’s the difficulty you face. And that,s why you have to rely upon theactual language in the Zoning Code. When that Zoning Code was adopted the Council madea ~lecision to provide a process through minor amendment. It seems to me the appropriate way to handle this if this is a worthwhile type of change to make to permit applicants to make changes of this kind without providing public benefits based on the rationale that the Planned Community Zone existed prio~ to the 1978 Zoning Code then theappropriate amendment .to the Zoning Ordinance language should be made City of Palo Alto Page 8 35 I 2 5 6 7 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 39 40 41 42 44 45 first to provide the legislative authority to enal~le the Commission and-the Council to grant those types of applications. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. That was the only card that I had so I will close ~e Public Hearing and bring the discussion back to the Commission. Any additional comment or questions for Staf-~.. Jon. Commissioner Schinl¢: I just have a comment for Staff. I think we all note in this application that there are a series of dishes being applied to the side of the building. I hope that can go on record so in the future if we start seeing Vertical antennas sticking up in addition to what we are seeing here that someone could try to do something about that. ’I’ve.just-noticed over the last 20 years of watching these antennas proliferate, and I appreciate them because we need them for our convenience, but it seems that on some of the buildings they "sprout" additional little antennas that stick straight up. On a building like this that is all pure and it is just going to have the round kind but we should watch in future ira lot more of the little pointy ones start showing up that it’s time to come back. Chairman Schmidt:., Pat. Commissioner Burr: I concur with Jon that these particular antennas are comparatively inconspicuous. I do share with Mr..Boroek the eoneem that as we.see stated by Staff on page three that the report does not include a public benefit finding as the pr0jeet involves an amendment to an established PC District rather flaan the establishment of a new district. Could you explain a little more what’s the history of this apparent policy? Is this an established policy that says no matter what the impact or change in use that there would be no public benefit because it is an amendment to an established PC Zone.’? Mr. Cormolly: I’d like to.defer that to the City Attorney as far as the policy. I would like to add one thing too as far as Jon’s comment and your first comment about, the appearance. The way the ordinance is presently written all of these Would go through ARB so ira different style of antenna comes in that is much more visible that is going to be subject to another form of discretionary approval. With that said.I’ll turn the policy issue over to Wyrme. Ms. Wyrme Furth, Senior Assistaht Cit~ Attorney: Thank you. No, there isn’t a policy that any use could be added to an existing PC Zone whether it was an old one or a new one without a funding of public benefit. This issue first arose however for the ehildcare amendmeht and the. analysis that we made and that you accepted was that ehildeare is a desired and promoteduse in the City. It is permitted in other zones in the area that are zoned for comparable uses and you are essentially bringing the PC Zone inline wi.th the Comprehensive Plan and in to parody with other similar zones. You’re not providing the kind of special privileges or special flexibility that a PC Zone is designed for. Similarly in this case the report quotes the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and encourage accommodation of this kind of facility. Once again, every other commercial and industrial zone in the City and public facility zones permit thisuse. City of Palo Alto.Page 9 I 3 7 lO II 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 29 30 31 32 ’34 36 39 40 41 42 43 Mr. Cormolly: Every district does permit this as a conditional use. In most of them it is a conditional use but you can do if’in every zoning district in the City. Ms. Furth: In this case Staff conciuded that it made more sense to allow it as a permitted use subject to design review when the use permitted is defined as narrowly as it is and when the project is already developed. In other words; since the proposed authorized use is subject to design review going through an additional CUP process would not add anything either to the applicant’s situation or the communities situation. So the short answer to your question is that if the request were for a use .which was an extraordinary combination of uses, not the kind ordinarily allowed in this kind of district and promoted by the Comprehensive Plan, then we would be coming to you and telling you we believe you should require assuring a public benefit before you authorize the change. Chairman Schmidt: Other questions? Anyone like to begin discussion or make a motion? Jon. Commissioner Schink: I’ll move the Staff recommendation. Commissioner Bialson: I’ll second it. Chairman Schmidt: .Ion would you like speak to your motion? Commissioner Schink: I think the Staff report does an excellent job of summarizing the strengths of this application. It is relatively simple.. It has almost no impact and it seems like an appropriate convenience for the business community to appreciate. So I’ll be happy to support the project. ¯ Chairman Schmidt: Annette, does the seconder have any additional comments? CommissionerBialson: None other than I appreciated Wynne’s comments and I feel like they clarify the situation that Herb Boroek brought to our attention previously and deserves an a_rl~Wero Chairman Schmidt: Other comments? Let’s vote on this. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed say no. That passes with the five commissioners present voting for it and Phyllis Cassel not participating. Does that have a date on which it goes to City Council? Mr. Connoll¥: Right now there is a timeline and the Council date is anticipated to be June 5, 2000 but it does need Architectural Review Board approval first with more detailed plans. It will be back before the Commission between the ARB and the Council heating. Chairman Sehrnidt: Okay. Commissioner Schink: When it comes back to the Commission can it be put on consent calendar unless there are significant changes? Ci(y of Palo Alto Page 10 37 I 2 8 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 28 29 3O 31 33 34 36 37 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Grote: The consent calendar is not something that you’ve used often in your history. We Can explore the opportunity to use it this time for this application. I.f we can’t put it on the consent calendar I’ll let the Chairman know and we’ll put it on the regular agenda. Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Thank you. I have essentially the same question on the CIP that I forgot to ask. When does that go to Council? I believe it goes to the Finance Committee. Do we need to have a representative go to the Finance Committee or does that make any difference? Ms. Grote: It would be helpful if you had a representative at the Finance Cornnu’ttee, I believe that date is April 17th for the Finance Committee. The final date for the full City Council hearing " has not yet been decided on. Chairman Schmidt: So are either of the Commissioners who are part of the sub-committee able to go on April 17t~? We can also cheek with Phyllis. Commissioner Schink: Check with Phyllis. Ms. Grote: I believe April 17~ is the date. I will clarify that for you. Chairman Schmidt: So let’s say at the moment that Pat would do that unless.he is unable to meet on that.particular date. Thank you The next item on the agenda is Reports From Committees. Any reports tonight? REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES. None Chairman Sehraidt: The next item is Reports From Officials. Anything under that. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. Chairr~an Schmidt: Annette and I could talk about having attended the Planner’s Institute for the League of California Cities. Annette is the president of the Planner’s Institute. So she was really the person in charge of making this happen. There were 1,000 attendees. Commissioner Bialson: That’s correct. Staff was really.instrtmaental and Ed Gawf attended as well..It was very enjoyable to have him at the Institute. I felt that we had several concurrent sessions that were very interesting for plarmers to go to. We had a mix of approximately 30 to 35% planning officials and the rest plarming commissioners from all over the state. We tried to encourage more interchange of ideas among the commissioners as well a~ the planners.so that a lot of the sessions had perhaps half the time devoted to a discussion from the panel and half the time an interchange of ideas. They were especially helpful. With regard to single-family ¯ residence design review there was quite a heated discussion. Mansionizafion was a panel led by Ed Gawf. I think it was very well received and I hqpe that some more of the Commissioners would attend next year. This is once a year in Monterey and it’s not a bad place to be. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Attachment D 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 2 :MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16: ROLL CALL: 7:10 PM May 10, 2000 REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Civic Center, Ist Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Commission ers: Kathy Schmidt, Chair. Annette Bialson, Vice-Chair don Schink Patrick Burt Owen Byrd Phyllis Cassel Bonnie Packer Staff: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Wynne Furth, Senior Asst. City Attorney Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official Luke Connolly, Senior Planner Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary Chairman Schmidt: I would like to call the regular meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission of May 10, 2000 to order. Would the secretary please call the roll. The first item on the agenda is Oral Communications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chairman Schmidt: I do not have any cards for Oral Communications. So we will move on to our next item. At this time I would like to introduce our new City Manager, Frank Benest, who has come to say hello and introduce himself. City of Palo Alto Page 1 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 ¯ ~lr. Frank Benest, City Manager: Thank you. I’ve been here a month now and am thoroughly : ef~ized and exhausted. Obviously the Boards and C6mmissions are a critical part of our gove~ ,r~. ents process here in Palo Alto so I am going out to all the Commissions and especially wanted~ome to the Planning and Transportation Commission. I look forward to working with !_h__e_ pl ~..a~fin’~ad Transportation Commission and our Staff involved in those areas and " s~u__p.p_ ~n~g y.oi~.wo,rk. I see my role as helping us focus on the issues and the challenges that we _h.a._v_e__a~_~,tryi~ng~o~al with whatever roadblocks and obstacles that we have so we can be ~,fu_ !.,_S_,0 th~er.e.’~lot of action. I notice tonight that you are dealing with two critical iss~ train station ~e is just a wonderful opportunity for Palo Alto as well as traffic ~h, is obviou, sly..~ajor issue in Palo Alto. Th~n in terms of our continuing with ~ously.we are lookin’~ our mixed-use opportunities, hopefully some affordable ~s_ues .that we c_an work o~open space, there is just a full plate and a lot of action. I li~n so I foresee that w"~J,1 be interacting a great deal. I’ve been very impressed ~ery.i.mpressed .~the quality of the people that we have serving on ourBoards and Commissions. I just wanted to"h~roduce myself and I look forward to working with y~u.. I’m d~ellght.~d.to=~e~ereinPaloAlt~" T~u. ’ ~ you very much and welco.~. The next item is Agenda, Changes, f. .Na s,..a_o_o.mo vsa vD~ L rw s.ThL~genda may have additional ~_m,s~]]_i~ ;i ~Pma~til 72 ho~s plior t_o.t~e.meeting lime._. ~ ~ormat_ for the Plan~g and onsent ¯ ~C~al..e_n,d_~_it_e,m_s_~,_o_u_!d ,b~ y~ted o,n, .withou, t discussion. If_th.ere m’_e..several of the, they would " peak to . calendar by a Commission Member. 3000 E! Camino Real*: (File Nos.: 99-PC-1; 99-ARB-127; 99-EIA-22): Planned Community (PC) Zoning amendment and Environmental Impact Assessment applications by Winstar Communications to allow building-mounted telecommunications facility subject to approval by the Architectural Review Board and City Council. Winstar’s specific proposal would allow a telecommunications facility consisting of up to 50 dish- type antennae and associated equipment attached to the roof-top of an existing 10-story, commercial-office building in Palo Alto Square office park. The ARB recommeladed approval of Winstar’s design (File 99-ARB-127) at the April 6, 2000 meeting. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zoning District: PC- 2533 City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Cassel: If you are going to have discussion I should leave at this time. Otherwise I could just not participate. My husband works at Stanford and this a Stanford owned project. Commissioner Packer: My husband is also working for Stanford at the moment and my son is receiving a tuition benefit as a result of my husband’s employment so I have a Stanford conflict. Chairman Schmidt: Okay, thank you. That item that we are talking about is 3000 E1 Camino Real. The member of the public who wishes to speak on this item is Herb Borock. Mr. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Thank you Chair Schmidt. Members of the Commission, I still have the same concerns about the process that I expressed to you at your meeting of March 8th which appears in the minutes that are attached to the Staff report. Recently the City Council had the opportunity to act on an ordinance for another amendment to this PC Zone at this address. The City Attorney’s Office recommended two changes that the Council agreed to. It seems to me that both changes would be needed in this ordinance as well. The first is that he believed that it was appropriate to define a public benefit. The second was that what would be Section 4 of this ordinance to specifically call outthe PC Zone District number in the ordinance in referring to the particular plans that are being cited in the ordinance. I would hope that any public benefit for this ordinance as well as for the other project on the site that the Council finally adopts would be more than just making the project itself the public benefit. For example, in the previous project it was for Childcare First and it seemed to m’e that rather than just saying the provision of childcare was the public benefit, if the City has had or was in negotiations to have a contract to have Childcare First that seemed to be a much more direct and understandable public benefit for the City to be amending the PC Ordinance in this way despite the concerns that I expressed previously. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. I will close the public hearing and come back to the Commission. Is there discussion or questions? I would like to ask the City Attorney about Mr. Borock’s question. Ms. Wvnne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney: This issue did come up with Children First on the same site with an additional amendment. The Code is silent on the issue of whether or not amendments require an additional finding of public benefit but there is some advantage certainly in finding a public benefit if it is possible. In the ease of Children First the City has a strong policy in favor or permitting childcare.facilities, something of an historic anomaly that they weren’t permitted in this particular place. In this case, we also have a Comprehensive Plan. Policy that encourages the City to make adequate provision for telecommunications facilities. It is the Planning Department’s view that locating telecommunication facilities on existing over- height buildings, if we take our current 50-foot standard as standard height and anything higher than that is over height, when they. are adequately screened is probably the most effective way to site these facilities while minimizing aesthetic and other possible detriments to the community.. So we think it would be useful to add a finding to that effect if you agree with that analysis. Chairman Schmidt: Would. anyone like to add anything? City of Palo Alto Page 3 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 ’7 8 Commissioner Bwd: Could I propose a friendly amendment that we add a finding that locating these telecommunication facilities at this location is a public benefit to this community? MOTION: Commissioner Schink: So moved. SECOND: Commissioner Bialson: Second. 9 10 11 12 13 MOTION PASSED: Chairman Schmidt: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Staff recommendation and a friendly amendment regarding a finding of public benefit has been added. Is there any further discussion on this? Then let’s vote. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed say no. That passes all five present voting for and Commissions Packer and Cassel not participating. ~,,x That brings us to our next item. It says Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions but we’ve 16 ",~ready done that. 11~So u~u er Unfinished Business there is nothing. 19 . 21 Public Hearin~ None.." 9_2.’o ~ ~Ch.a.i.rm_~ Schmidt.’~der New Business, Public Hearings we have two transportation related 24 public hearings tonight.",T,~e first one is the Intermodal Transit Center Design Development. 27 Public hearings:~’ 2.lntermodal Transit Center Des~ Development: Review and discussion of two 30 design alternatives for environs of th~niversity Avenue Caltrain station. Design 31 elements include circulation, civic space,~d transit-oriented development. 32 33 Chairman Schmidt: Joe Kott, head of our Transportat~’xb~,,Department will begin this. JosephMr. Kott, Chief Transportation Official: _Thank youX~am Chair We are here tonight 36 to describe to you the work done to date to develop the design o~’~t~ intermodal transit center for 37 Palo Alto. This work, in a way, completes that which was begun in"lx9~93 as part of a public 38 planning and design process, familiarly known as the "Dream Team" p~ess including public 39 charrette. That work was continued on in 19~~_on_al d_etail addeXd,,,,,This particular 40 endeavor was a joint one between the City of Palo Alto.and Stanford _and fun~l~st~bstantially 41 through a petroleum escrow violation accoun~ate a des_ign that ~asible from 42 the standpoint of several engineering and tr~_mplis-hes all the’~ectives 43 that the Dream Team process set forth and that are ca~ the Comprehensive PlanX’~d~at 44 Palo Alto had adopted in 1998.¯~45 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Azzacnment E ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ¯City of Pale Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 1.Project Title: 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: Winstar Communications Wireless telecommunications facility City of Pale Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue. - Pale Alto, CA 94301 3.Contact Person and Phohe Number:Suzanne Davis, Planner 650/329-21.89 4.Project Location: 5,Application Number(s): 3000 El Camino Real 99-PC-1; 99-ARB-127; 99-EIA-22 6.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: 7.General ~’lan Designation: Kukulica & Associates for Winstar Commmunications 11750 DubLin Blvd., Suite 106A Dubtin, CA 94568 Research/Office Park. 8.Zoning: 9.Description of the Project: PC (Planned Community) ,#2533 Planned Commuaity Zone Change to allow telecommunications facilities, and installation of up to 50 dish antennas on the penthouse of an existing multi-story building, related equipment .and screening of both. The Wifeless telecommunications facility wbuld !be operated by Winstar Communications. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Subject site is located on the southwest comer of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. The proposed dish antennas would!be located on the penthons~ that is located on top of Tower I. Immediately adjacent parcels are developed with other office research facilities. Across Page Mill Road to the west is multi-family residential and light industrial uses. Across El Camino Real to the north is commercial with residential behind. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). Federal Communications Commission (PCC) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by .this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 43 Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources " Cultural R~sources Geol0gy/Soils ¯Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation X Transportation/Traffic ~ -_: Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings Of Significance None DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial" evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environmeut,and a. NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this ease because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by.the project proponent. A M:ITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a Significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL I~IPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless.mitigated,’ impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be a/ddressed. I find that although the proposed project could have asignificant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been. avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. X EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact’, answers that are adequately .supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project fails outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)All answers must take account ofthe whole’action involved, including off-site as well as on:site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. : 3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, le~s than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant. Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EI:R is required." 4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5)Earlier analysis may be us.ed where, pursuant to the tiering, program EItL or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. h)Impacts Adequa’tely Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the.earlier analysis. c)Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,", describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document:shouid, where apprgpriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, andother sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8)This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 45 Issues and Supporting Information Sources I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) b) c) d) Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista? ¯ Substantially damage Scenic resources, including, but not limited to, .trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which -would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,7 1,7 X X X X II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts On agriculture and farmland, Would the project: 1)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the . maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,. to non-agricultural use? 2)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a. Williamson Act contract? 3)Involve other changes in the existing e~vironment which, due to their location or nature, couidresult in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1,2 X X X ~ ~ QUALITY. Where available, the Significance criteriaestablished by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district maY be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 1, 2 " ¯air quality plan?X 1,2 1, 2 b).Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed. quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to subs.tantial pollutant concentrations? d) X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially .Significant Unless Mitigated Lm Than. Significant Impact No Impact e).Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number 1, 2 Xof people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)X b) e) d) e) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or. other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a s’ubstantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native " resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident .or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with ’any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, reg!onal or state conservation plan? 1,2 (~-1) (N-1) 1,2 X X X X X V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) X b) c) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of .an historical resource pursuant to 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or Site or unique geologic feature? 1,2 (L-S) 1,2 X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources .d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemetkries? " Source~ 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Sig~ifieant Unle. Mitigated Les.~ Than Significant Impact VI. GEOLOGY" AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substa~tial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a kno.wn earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist. for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to.Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic groundshaking7 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? S 2, 4 N-8, N- 10) 2, 4 N-8, N- 10) iv) Landslides?2, 4 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of t6psoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? b) d)Be located on expansiv~ soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of n/a septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems .where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the. environment through the routing transport, use, disposal of hazardous materials? 2, 7 NO Impact X X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources b) c) d) e) h) Create a significant hazard to the public Or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances~ or waste within one- quarter mile Of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a ¯ significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project re.suit in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wiidlands? 2, 7 2, 7, 8 2, 8 n/a n/a 1, 2 (N- 7) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant " Unless Mitigated VIIL HYDROLOGY A~ND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) b) c) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would, be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby Wells would drop to a level which would not .support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1,2 1,2 (~-2) 1,2 Less Than~ Significant Impact No Impact X ~ X X X X X X X X X 49 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water whicl~ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage . systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard areaas mapped on a federalFlood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1,2 1, 2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Tilan Significant Impact ~o Impact X X X h) Place within a 100-year fiord hazard area structures which 1, 9 Xwould impede or redirect flood flows?(N-6) " i). Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss," 1, 2 Xinjury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a (N-8) result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?1, 2 X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. WOuld the project: a). Physically divide an established community?1, 2 :X b)1, 2, 3 X c) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific. plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of.avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.that would be of value to the.region and the residents of the state? 1,2 X X 8 Issues and SupportingInformation Sources B Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Sources 2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Tha~ Significant Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: : a) c) d) e) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards oi" other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project7 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or,. where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels7 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 2, 7. 2,7 n/a ¯ n/a No Impact X X X X X X X XIL POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)1, 2 X b) Induce substantial. .population growth in anarea, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? n/a) X X Issues and SupportingInformation Sources XffI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Sources Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated L~s Th~n No Significant Impact Impact a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with theprovision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,.the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public facilities? 11 1, 7 2 .2 2 XIV. RECREATION a) b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such .that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic Which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at inte.rsections)? .. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established bY the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results _ in substantial safety risks? 1,2 n/a 1;2 (T- .7, T-S) Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) e) f) g) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equ.ipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access.7 Result in inadequate parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative trfinsportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Sources 2 1,3 2 Potentially Significant l~sues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than ~" Significant Impact XVI. UTILIT]:ES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would’the.Project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or ¯ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) e) g) Requ!re or result in the construction of new. storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient wate~ supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result" in a determination by the wastewater treatment ¯ providei" which serves or may serve the project that it has ¯ adequate capacity to serve the project’S projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? ¯ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1,2 1, 9 2 1,2 2 2, 9 No Impact X X X x X X X X X X X 11 53 XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.~ a)14 XDoes the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining leveis, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of CalLfornia history or prehistory? b) Does the projecthave impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects1 the effects of other curr~nt projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project haye environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 14 14 X SOURCE REFERENCES: 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. I0. 11. 12. 13. 14. Site visit. Planner’s knowledge of the site and project. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 & Maps L-7, L-8, L-9, N-l’ N-2, N-3, N-S, N-6, N-8, N-10, T-7, T-8 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18- Zoning Ordinance Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Uniform Building Code Information submitted by the applicant City of Palo Alto Fire Hazardous Materials Division, written comments on project City of Palo Alto Public Works Department City of Palo Alto Police Department written comments on project City of Palo Alto Fire Department written comments on project City of Palo Alto Transportation Division written comments on project City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division written comments on Project Answers substantiated through the responses provided in items I-XVI of this environmental checklist. ATTACHMENTS: A.Site Location Map EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthe~=s The appl.icants have proposed a panel to screen the antennas. The pahel will be era material that will hide the antennas while still allowing for ~’ansmissions/rsceiving. The cdlor of the screen will match the penthouse. The antennas will not be seen from offthe site due to the panel screen. A 20’ x 28’ equipment shelter will not be seen as it will be lower than the existing rooRop S~L~OP.~’eS. Mitigation Measures: None required. If. Agriculture Resources The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Fan-nland of Statswide Importance are~ as shown on the maps prepared for the 12armland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned as an agricultural use, and it is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation MeasureS: None required. Ill. Air Quality The proposed mlecommunications facility will not have a significant effect on air quality. The antennas and equipment will not generat~ more vehicle trips than the ~xisting business, as the facility is unmanned and is serviced infzequently (twice a month). The project would not result in temporary dust emissions during installation as no grading is necessary. Mitigation Measures: None r.~quired. IV. Biological Resources No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects, and plant Species have been identified at this site. The project has been reviewed by the City Planning Arborist, and Planning Staff. None of the existing trees or other landscaping will be impacted, and all existing landscaping is being retained. ¯ Mitigation Measures:- None. V. Cultural Resources The site is currently developed with buildings, parking facilities and landscaping. Placing the antennas and screen and equipment shelter on the roof and penthouse of Tower I will be the only work needed to insta~l the telecommunications facility. Ther~ are no known cultural resources on the site. Mitigation Measures: None. VI. Geology and Soils The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site located in a seismic risk area, subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure, is possible, but not likely to cause any problems with the facility.. No known fanlts cross the project site, therefore surface fault rupture at the site is very unlikely. Mitigation Measures: None required. 55 VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The facility does not have any hazardous materials. The applicant has completed a Hazardous Materials Disclosure Checklist and the Fire Department has reviewed this along with the proposed project. The antennas, screen and equipment shelter will be of non-combustible materials. Mitigation Measures: None required. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality The facility will not use any water. The site is not in a special flood hazard zone. Mitigation Measures: None required. ]~X. Land Use and Planning The General Plan designation for this site is Research/Office Park. Immediately surrounding land uses are office/research buildings. There are commercial land uses across El Camino Real, which is a four lane arterial. The zoning designation is PC (Planned Community), which if determined to bean acceptable location for telecommunication facilities, could be amended to allow the use. The building that the antennas and equipment shelter would be located on is set back from Page Mill Road and El Camino Real, and there would be a large buffer-(landscape and distance) between the location and other businesses- and residences across El Camino. The proposed use would provide a desirable service to Pale Alto businesses and residents. Mitigation Measures: None required. ¯ X. Mineral Resources The proposed facility will utilize more energy resources than the existing building on the site, but the increase is considered minor and would not be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None required. XI. Noise The applicant is required to Comply with the r~quirements of the Pale Alto Noise Ordinance, Chaptei" 9.10 PAMC. The equipment will becontained in a shelter and would not present a noise impact. Mitigation Measures: None required. XII. Population and Housing There would not be any changes to housing or population as a result of the project (the facility is unmanned). Mitigation Measures: None required. XIII. Public Services Fire The proposed project would not impact ftre service to the existing office/research park. The Site is not located in a high Rre hazard area. Police -Tl~ Site is located within the j~’s~-~ of the Pale Alto Police Department. The facility would not by’~"~lt in theneed for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. 14 Schoo__._..~ No direct demand for school services would result from the project as the proposal does not generate an increase ofpop~ation and residents to Palo Alto. Parks No direc~ demand for additional parks would result from the project as the proposal.does not generate an increase of population and residents to Palo Alto. Other Public Facilities The project would not result in impacts to other public facilities because it is small and is being located on ~n existing developed property~ Mitigation Measures: None required. XIV. Recreation No direct demand for additional recreational facilities would result from the project as the proposal does not generate an increase of population and residents to Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None required. XV. Transportation/Traffic The property fronts E1 Csmino Real, a four lane arterial, and Page Mill Road, a four lane. expressway. Access to the facility will be from an existing driveway~ There will not be a parking or traffic impact as the facility is unmanned and is serviced infrequently. Ch’culation: Existing driveways, access and ch~culation will be retained.as they exist. Parking.’ One to two employees will visit the site once a month for servsce and maintenance purposes. during.those visits; there is no demand for additional parking on the site. Mitigat!on Measures: None required. A vehicle may be parked on-site XVI. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Mitigation Measures: None required. MANDATORY FINDI’NGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project proposes the installation of up to 50 dish antennas that will be screened, and related equipment that will be contained within a rooRop shelter. The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources. The project would not involve any grading and there would minimal disturbance to install the antennas, screen and.- equipment. The use is appropriate for the site and would not be a visual impact as the antennas and equipment will not be vis~le. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts. 57 ¯ " . City of Palo.Alto Depart~ie.nt of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act NE GA TIVE DE CLARA TION I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: November 1, 1999 Application Nos.: Addres~ of project: 3000 El’ Camino Real’ 99-PC-1, 99-ARB-127; 99-EIA-22 Assessor’s Parcel No.: 142-20-072 Applicant:Winstar Communications 50 Fremont Street, Suite 1900 San Francisco, Ca 94105 Proper~ Owner: Stanford Management ’ 2770 Sand Hill Road Palo Alto,Ca 94025 Project Description and Location: Planned Community Zone Change to allow telecommunications facilities, and ~ation of up to. 50 dish antennas on the penthouse of an existing multi-story, building, along with related equipment on the roof..’Fae wireless telecommuaications facility would be operated by Winstar Communications. H. DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an InitialStudy to determine whether the proposed project located at 529 Bryant Street may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that.study, the City makesthe following determination: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DE~ON is hereby adopted. Although the. project, a~ proposed, could have a significant, effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARARION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms thedetermination that an EIR is not required for the project. Attachment F ao bo PUBLIC BENEFIT FINDINGS 3000 E! Camino Real PC Zoning District Amendment Permitting Building-Mounted Telecommunication Facilities 99-PC-1; 99-EIA-22 The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. The majority of building-mounted telecommunication facilities must be placed at a height significantly above surrounding development in order to function properly. This often requires that such facilities be located in Zoning Districts that allow building heights in excess of the City’s typical 50-foot height limit. The subject site is developed with two structures over 140 feet in height and is ideally suited to accommodating such facilities. Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The subject site is already deve!oped in accordance with the existing PC Zoning District standards and the proposed inclusion of telecommunication facilities as a permitted use will not materially alter the physical or aesthetic appearance of the site. Moreover, the ~rovision of on-site telecommunication facilities will result in a benefit to the ~ublic through improved and more wide ranging wireless communication services. Co The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. Comprehensive Plan Policies B-13 and B-14 promote the establishment of technologically advanced telecommunications infrastructure that will benefit the City’s residents, schools, and businesses. Permitting building- mounted telecommunication facilities at the subject site is consistent with these Comprehensive Plan Policies. Additionally, telecommunication facilities are compatible with surrounding land uses, which consist of commercial and office- research and development uses. 61