HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-23 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting November 23, 1998 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................87-302 2. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....87-302 3. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....87-302 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.............87-302 1. Appointment to the Utilities Advisory Commission......87-303 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................87-303 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................87-304 2. Application by Carrasco & Associates for Approval of a Final Subdivision Map to Subdivide the 10.26 Acre Cabana Hotel Property located at 4290 El Camino Real into 14 Single-Family Residential Lots and One Parcel for the Cabana Hotel Facilities, Tract No. 9071............................87-304
3. Ordinance No. 4532 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System (2% @55 Full Formula for
Local Miscellaneous Members)≅ .........................87-304
4. Ordinance No. 4533 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $636,000 for Salary and Benefit Increases Retroactive to July 1, 1998 for
Management and Confidential Employees≅ ................87-304 5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation to adopt the 1999-2001 Budget Guidelines............................................87-305
11/23/98 87-300
6. Rejection of Bids for the Construction of the Environmental Compliance Laboratory and Offices at the Water Quality Control Plant.................................................87-305
7. Ordinance No. 4534 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide Funding for Various Golf Course Clubhouse and Related Improvements Offset by a Reduction in Debt Service Payments Resulting in a Return to the General Fund Reserves of $33,430"..............................................87-305 8. Approval of Agreements Related to a Loan in the Amount of $2,450,000 to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation for the Acquisition of the Sheridan Apartments at 360 Sheridan Avenue......................................................87-305 9. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....87-305 10. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....87-306 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment, as recommended by the Architectural Review Board to approve an application for safety and operational improvements to the Palo Alto Airport located at 1925 Embarcadero Road.................................87-306
12. The Policy and Services Committee re Revisions to the City=s Flood Hazard Regulations..............................87-326 13. The Policy and Services Committee re San Francisco International Airport Generated Aircraft Noise........87-326 14. Approval of Loan Commitment to Mid-peninsula Housing Coalition to Acquire Palo Alto Gardens Apartments at 648 San Antonio Road; Funding Mechanisms in Support of Acquisition; and Public Hearing on Possible Submittal of a Section 108 Loan Guarantee Application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development...........................................87-332 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........87-334 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m............87-335
11/23/98 87-301
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:15 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber (arrived at 6:30 p.m.), Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Lanie Wheeler, Micki Schneider, Dick Rosenbaum) Unrepresented Employees: City Manager June Fleming, City Attorney Ariel Calonne, City Auditor William Vinson Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 2. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Fisher, et al. v. City of Palo Alto, SCC No. CV777977 and Middlefield Road Homeowners Association v. City of Palo Alto, SCC No. CV778008 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) 3. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Christine Chang v. City of Palo Alto, SCC No. CV766379 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
11/23/98 87-302
Regular Meeting November 23, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:08 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointment to the Utilities Advisory Commission Council Member Kniss would cast her vote for Dexter Dawes. She indicated that all were excellent candidates, and the Council appreciated their interest in and willingness to serve the City. FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR DEXTER DAWES: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler VOTING FOR RICHARD (RICK) FERGUSON: Mossar VOTING FOR GERALD (JERRY) MEEKS: VOTING FOR DAVID MORMAN: Interim City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that Dexter Dawes received seven votes and was appointed to the Utility Advisory Commission on the first ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mary Hansen, 287 Old County Road, Belmont, spoke regarding Juana Briones House. Freyda Ravitz, 20200 Lucille Avenue #33, Cupertino, spoke regarding Juana Briones House. Jeanne McDonnell, 1509 Portola Avenue, spoke regarding Juana Briones House. Jim Wiley, Woodland Avenue, Menlo Park, spoke regarding flooding in Palo Alto. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding communication.
11/23/98 87-303
David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding Palo Alto Downtown Park. Forest Preston, 4155 Interdale Way, spoke regarding canopy planting. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic responsibility. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Minutes of the October 13, 1998, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 8, with Item No. 2 postponed at the request of staff. 2. Application by Carrasco & Associates for Approval of a Final Subdivision Map to Subdivide the 10.26 Acre Cabana Hotel Property located at 4290 El Camino Real into 14 Single-Family Residential Lots and One Parcel for the Cabana Hotel Facilities, Tract No. 9071
3. Ordinance No. 4532 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System (2% @55 Full Formula for
Local Miscellaneous Members)≅ (1st Reading 11/2/98, PASSED 9-0)
4. Ordinance No. 4533 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $636,000 for Salary and Benefit Increases Retroactive to July 1, 1998 for
Management and Confidential Employees≅
Resolution No. 7811 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 7713, 7729, 7744, 7751, 7771, 7792 and 7797"
Resolution No. 7812 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU) Adopted by Resolution No. 7782 to
Change Certain Salaries and Classifications≅
11/23/98 87-304
Resolution No. 7813 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Hourly Personnel and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 7714 and 7750"
Resolution No. 7814 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 803 and 1701 of the Merit
System Rules and Regulations≅ 5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation to adopt the 1999-2001 Budget Guidelines. 6. Rejection of Bids for the Construction of the Environmental Compliance Laboratory and Offices at the Water Quality Control Plant
7. Ordinance No. 4534 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide Funding for Various Golf Course Clubhouse and Related Improvements Offset by a Reduction in Debt Service Payments Resulting in a Return to the General Fund Reserves of $33,430" Amendment No. One to Management Agreement No. 211 Between the City of Palo Alto and Brad Lozares for Golf Professional Services at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, 1875 Embarcadero Road Amendment No. One to Lease No. 211 Between the City of Palo Alto and Brad Lozares for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Pro-Shop, 1875 Embarcadero Road 8. Approval of Agreements Related to a Loan in the Amount of $2,450,000 to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation for the Acquisition of the Sheridan Apartments at 360 Sheridan Avenue Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Sheridan Apartments Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Housing Corporation to Fund the Acquisition of the Sheridan Apartments at 360 Sheridan Avenue MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 3 - 8, Schneider absent. CLOSED SESSION 9. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation
11/23/98 87-305
Subject: Fisher, et al. v. City of Palo Alto, SCC No. CV777977 and Middlefield Road Homeowners Association v. City of Palo Alto, SCC No. CV778008 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) 10. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Christine Chang v. City of Palo Alto, SCC No. CV766379 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 9. Mayor Rosenbaum announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment, as recommended by the Architectural Review Board to approve an application for safety and operational improvements to the Palo Alto Airport located at 1925 Embarcadero Road (continued from 6/29/98) Mayor Rosenbaum said the item had been continued with a recommendation to staff that the applicant and the appellants try to work out a settlement. The item would be reconsidered taking into account the results of those discussions. Assistant Planning Official Jim Gilliland said the meeting with the applicants and the appellants was held on July 22, 1998. The meeting was amicable and both sides articulated their concerns. However, the applicant believed they had already reduced the scope of the project, particularly the lighting, and the appellants were still concerned that the fencing and any additional lighting would have a negative impact on the wildlife habitat. Staff recommended a slight modification to the proposal which was to retain the fence in the proposed location with minor modifications to lower the fence to five feet from six feet, to treat some of the visual impact, and to provide a minimum four-inch clearance at the bottom of the fence to enable small animals to escape. Staff also recommended elimination of six lights nearest the Baylands area. Since the first map was difficult to read, he had prepared a new map which represented the entire Palo Alto Airport (the Airport) area, Embarcadero Road, and the runway. The shaded area was called
Αthe apron security lighting≅ area where the six proposed lights to be eliminated were located. He also illustrated a composite of the photometric drawing which had been distributed in the Council
11/23/98 87-306
packet. He hoped the maps would give a better understanding of where the six lights were located. Council Member Mossar asked whether the remaining light fixtures could be pointed out on the map. Mr. Gilliland pointed out on the map where the light fixtures were located. There were three at the bottom, then five. In the next row, all of the photometrics did not show. Council Member Mossar asked what were the total number of light fixtures included in the proposal. Mr. Gilliland said the total number of poles was 42, and the total number of fixtures was 65, of which some were doubles. The applicant might want to correct that figure. Council Member Huber clarified that the information before the Council that evening was the same as the Council received previously in June. The difference was that staff was recommending that the height of the fence be reduced, that a number of poles be
eliminated, and that staff=s recommendation had not been agreed to by the applicant nor the appellants. Mr. Gilliland said that was correct.
Council Member Kniss recalled that the Council=s greatest concern in June related to the effect of lighting on night usage. She asked whether the proposal had been altered from the previous discussion. Mr. Gilliland said the discussion covered much territory including night usage and the effect on the wildlife habitat. In essence, the elimination of the six lights would have a minimal impact or change on the overall proposal. Much light was being added. Staff had been convinced by the applicant that when the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was put together, light poles had been significantly reduced by staff. Staff left the lights because the applicant made a successful argument that there was a need for the lighting, and the applicant had done as much as possible to minimize the impact. Council Member Kniss asked whether the lights would remain on continuously. Mr. Gilliland said yes, after dark. Council Member Kniss confirmed that the staff recommendation did not seem to alter the outcome substantially from what had been proposed in June. Mr. Gilliland said that was correct.
11/23/98 87-307
Council Member Mossar asked whether there was any discussion regarding changing the type or height of the fixtures or only about reducing the fixtures. Mr. Gilliland said no. Many issues were discussed including reducing or increasing the height. All changes had issues surrounding them, for instance, if the height were reduced, more lights would be needed to light the same area. Increasing the height of the lights became an issue for the traffic controllers in the Airport tower. Staff came to the conclusion that the Airport, through its consultants, had proposed the best possible solution if the lights were needed. Council Member Mossar asked, assuming the minimum four-inch space at the bottom of the fence was agreeable, whether discussions were held about the maintenance of that space, whether staff had dealt with prior situations where there was a fence with a minimum space required, and what the long-term realities of that commitment were. Mr. Gilliland said no. Council Member Eakins asked whether motion sensor lights similar to
those found in people=s driveways had been discussed. Mr. Gilliland said that type of lighting was not addressed at the meeting in July. The engineer might want to address the issue. The subject of motion sensor lighting was touched upon, but it was felt motion sensor lighting would not be successful in such an expansive area. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the Public Hearing. Jerome Bennett, Santa Clara County Airport Manager, the applicant, said the appeal was based on the effect of the Airport lighting as proposed in the aircraft parking and storage area and the height and location of parameter fencing east of the runway. At the meeting on July 22, 1998, with the appellants, the focus was the design criteria and objectives of the project. Staff had provided specific information on the fencing, and the limiting factors of the location such as runway safety area established by the Federal Aviation Association (FAA) and the locations of the wetlands which were being mitigated as part of the project. Various alternatives were suggested to the appellants with regard to the airfield lighting in terms of pole height, location, and illumination factors. The number of poles, height, and illumination were arrived at to ensure there would be no spillover to other areas such as the Baylands or reflection that would affect the air
traffic control personnel=s night vision and aircraft pilots landing and taking off. At the end of the meeting, the appellants seemed to be comfortable with the proposed fence location but remained opposed to the Airport lighting portion of the project as it applied to the aircraft parking and storage area. The
11/23/98 87-308
appellants wanted the lighting in total removed from the project. He announced that comments would be forthcoming from his team of consultants. Ken Brody, Schutt & Moen Associates (consultant for applicant), displayed a drawing with regard to the fence issue. The drawing highlighted the previous issue regarding the site lines from the walkway toward the runway, showing a six-foot fence which was originally proposed. There was a slight blockage of the view across the airfield. The applicant supported the concept of the staff recommendation with respect to the fence. He clarified that the discussion about a five-foot rather than a six-foot fence applied to the section along the walkway and not the piece next to the road where security was a higher requirement. Also, with regard to a three-inch rather than a four-inch gap underneath, he interpreted that to be the fabric of the fence being five-feet with a four-inch gap underneath and the standard fencing fabric in even one-foot increments. Larry Myers, Myers Engineering Group (engineering consultant for applicant), said the lighting fixtures being designed were proposed
for use at the Airport and were called Αa sharp cutoff fixture.≅ The light distribution was mostly downward and slightly outward, designed to provide a low glare, low brightness lighting solution. Cutoff fixtures were in direct opposition to flood lights which projected light out in a directional pattern. The street lights
along University Avenue were Αsharp cutoff fixtures≅ and did a very nice job. Because cutoff fixtures shined light downward, there was not a problem with sky glows. With regard to the route of light intensities being designed to, the Illumination Engineering Society (IES) recommended a lighting intensity of 2- to 5-foot candles. For comparative purposes, the infield at Candlestick Park was at 150-foot candles, the Council Chambers was about 55- to 60-foot candles, and the proposed design was at the lower end of the 2- to 5-foot candle range. On a clear night with a full moon, there would be .l to .5-foot candles. Motion sensors were most often used where light was needed only when people were walking through an area. The design intent was to provide steady lighting throughout the night for security and vandalism purposes. Scott Tarrell, H.T. Harvey and Associates (Ornithologist consultant for the applicant), said he had a doctorate in avian biology with specialities in bird behavior and migration. All issues in the literature associated with lighting were identified with migrant birds striking tall structures such as towers with unlit guy wires. The birds became disoriented, especially in bad weather and collided with the guy wires. An extensive literature search was done to find out about effects of low-level lights, but nothing could be found in the literature to support the idea that there was a disruption caused by low-level lights. There was also no evidence in the literature of disruption of physiological ribbons by ambient lights (artificial outdoor lights). It was found in the
11/23/98 87-309
lab that it would take strong direct light to actually cause shifts in physiological ribbons. Mr. Bennett said the project would cost about $2.4 million, funded 90 percent by the Federal Aviation Association (FAA). While there was no evidence that the project as proposed would have no detrimental effect on the Airport environment, the City staff recommended that the project be modified for proposed lighting and fencing. The project had no capacity enhancement elements to it. It was a safety operational infrastructure project. In the spirit of cooperation and sensitivity to the appellants, he supported the staff recommendations including the changes requested by the appellants regarding fencing and lighting. Council Member Mossar asked whether consideration had been given to the maintenance of the space at the bottom of the fence, and if so, how would that be addressed. Mr. Bennett said they had not gotten to that point on the project.
They had just learned about the appellant=s proposal the previous Friday. Council Member Mossar asked whether there was another way to think about the lights. At the previous meeting, she had asked whether there were examples of that type of lighting which she could view, and she was told there were none in the area. She asked whether Stanford Shopping Center was lit in a way that would be comparable with the project. Mr. Myers said he had not seen the Stanford Shopping Center, but
the Αcutoff lighting fixtures≅ would be found at better, higher end shopping centers. Parking lots where pedestrians were involved were generally illuminated with more light because there was a boundary between pedestrians and automobiles which required more light. There was less activity in airport parking areas than there would be in a commercial shopping center which would require less light. He expected that the illumination levels at the Stanford Shopping Center would be somewhat stronger than what was being designed. Council Member Mossar clarified that the recommendation was for high pressure sodium light fixtures, and she asked why low pressure sodium light fixtures were not considered. Mr. Myers said low pressure sodium was the most efficient source commercially available. Many people found low pressure sodium objectionable because it was monochromatic, strictly one yellow-orange spectral line. A more common acceptable source was high pressure sodium which was a little more pink-orange color. For example, in the plaza in front of City Hall, there were some metal haylights which were a white-blue light color and somewhat less efficient. The two main reasons were that low pressure sodium did
11/23/98 87-310
not have wide popular acceptance and because it was not as commonly used, it tended to be a more expensive solution. Council Member Mossar asked whether low pressure sodium put out a lower visual light impact. Mr. Myers said there was no difference in color in terms of general comfort. The comfort came from whether the light glared or not. A lighting system could be comfortable whether it was incandescent or high pressure sodium as long as the design and the glare or brightness was controlled properly. Council Member Mossar asked whether Mr. Myers was familiar with the
City of Tucson=s lighting. Mr. Myers said he currently had a project there. Council Member Mossar understood that in Tucson, the low pressure lighting was the standard for residential neighborhoods, and the high pressure sodium was the standard for major streets. Mr. Myers said he believed she was correct. There was much low pressure sodium lighting in Tucson as well as in Palomar and Carlsbad. For observatories, the low pressure sodium was less disruptive to their work at night. There was a major observatory outside of Tucson. Council Member Mossar confirmed there were some benefits to the low pressure sodium fixtures. Mr. Myers said the benefits were operational economy and lessened impact on observatory use. Those were the only two benefits he was aware of. Council Member Mossar confirmed there was less light spillage. Mr. Myers said the light spillage was a function of the fixture
design. If it was a Αcutoff fixture≅ and the light was being channeled downwards, the spillage would be the same no matter what source was used. Council Member Kniss asked whether a precedent was being set using that type of lighting at an airport. Mr. Myers said a precedent was being set only in the sense that it was a better lighting design than would be found at most airports. San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) made use of a lot of flood lights which were directional and caused quite a glare. There should be no glare with the design being proposed as it was only to light the Airport, not outside the fence.
11/23/98 87-311
Council Member Kniss clarified that the lighting being considered was security lighting, not for take offs and landings. Mr. Myers said yes. There were other lighting systems used for
take offs and landings called Αedge-lighting systems≅ which were quite low. They were made to be seen at a very low angle from the
aircraft=s cockpit and the air. Mayor Rosenbaum said comparing numbers given against the wall chart regarding the lighting intensities was confusing. Mr. Myers said that 100 to .10 was what the IES called for. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified that the lighting being proposed was at the low range of what the IES recommended for airports. Mr. Myers replied 2- to 5-foot candles was the average. Certain spots on the pavement would be brighter and some dimmer. At a commercial airport with baggage handling and much activity around planes, the level would be up to 5- to 7-foot candles. For a general aviation airport, the 2-foot average level was sufficient. Mayor Rosenbaum said the wall chart showed .50 as the minimum that would be used. Mr. Myers said the design was for a minimum of .50-foot candle. If the area was between two fixtures or at the perimeter of a lighting system, below .50 would not do much good. Council Member Kniss said with regard to the fence, there was nothing in the report that indicated that any of the current species would be endangered. Mr. Jarrell said the primary concern with the fence was dispersal by small mammals. There were several ways to provide for dispersal corridors such as adding an open area below a fence or adding tunnels into the ground to funnel animals under the fence. With regard to the height of the fence, there was no problem. Council Member Kniss said that would indicate to her that had been taken into consideration and there would be ingress and egress. Mr. Jarrell said he was not involved in the discussions regarding the fence; but in his opinion, that type of gap would allow dispersal by a number of small animals such as rabbits and mice. Council Member Mossar recalled there had been a literature search on birds and nothing had been found. She asked whether that meant that no one had studied the issue. Mr. Jarrell said no. There were many studies on the effect of lighting in the literature which dealt primarily with physiology,
11/23/98 87-312
especially as it related to poultry and egg production. There was literature that dealt with mortality due to migrant birds colliding with lit structures that protruded into the migratory corridor approximately 500 to 1,000 feet. If someone aimed a bright light into a marsh, no one knew exactly what the effects of that might be. Some birds, such as herrings and egrets, would go into a lighted area and forage. What was not known was whether predators would actually do a more effective job of predating or whether the prey would do a more effective job of evading. If all the lights were aimed down and confined to the area where the planes were, he did not see how that would affect birds in the marsh. There was no literature to support or refute that issue. Council Member Ojakian said at the start of the issue, most were in agreement that the runway needed repair, but the project was a package deal for all three elements: the fence, lighting, and runway. The offer was to choose all or none. He asked what the reasoning was for that since two elements dealt with security and one dealt with safety. Mr. Bennett said when federal funds were applied for, the FAA required identifying a project and scope needed for a particular airport. Those were elements that were put together as a package and submitted as an application to the FAA for funding. The elements all had their own costs such as the pavement, both on runway and taxiway, and also substantial pavement repair on the aircraft parking area and sealing of the area. The principal components were the runway, taxiway, and the area where the aircraft moved to and from parking spaces; airfield lighting which was safety and security in nature; and some overrun areas on each end of the runway which was a paved area used for aircraft when a pilot overshot the runway which gave an added safety margin for the aircraft to stop before running out of pavement. Council Member Ojakian clarified in terms of getting funding from the FAA, each piece of the project was tied together; and if one piece did not go through, the project would be jeopardized. Mr. Bennett said no, but the project would have to go back to the FAA to be modified since the entire project had been funded. With regard to maintenance of the fence fabric, there was staff to ensure that the four-inch spacing would be maintained at all times. Council Member Huber said the Airport had some current activity that must impact birds and animals. He asked whether there was some way incrementally to advise what a difference the fence or lighting would make. Mr. Bennett said in terms of activity and use of the Airport, there was nothing the fence or lighting would increase or decrease, just enhance.
11/23/98 87-313
Council Member Huber said his question related to the wildlife. He asked whether space was needed there currently and what was going on there. Mr. Jarrell said wildlife was limited on the airfield in terms of use. There were some common species of birds that used the airfield. There was a lot of wildlife use on the other side of the fenced area and into the Palo Alto Baylands. Patrick Boursier, H. T. Harvey and Associates, had bid on the project performing surveys primarily identifying waters of the United States (U.S.) Army Corp of Engineers, Water Quality Control Board and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and had been onsite since February 1995. The largest animal he had encountered was a jack rabbit which was almost as flat as a frisbee when moving at a rapid pace. There were substantial habitats identified and also verified for the salt marsh harvest mouse which was the single most important species on the Airport property. The harvest mouse was not being impacted on the project, and they were taking every provision to avoid those wetland areas. Council Member Eakins said with regard to motion detectors, the explanation sounded self-canceling where the light came on only when someone was around. She asked why that was not sufficient. Mr. Myers said high-pressure sodium lights or low-pressure sodium lights took several minutes to warm up before they reached half illumination and continued on to full illumination after a few minutes. They were not a feasible lighting source for situations where the lights would cycle on and off. Incandescent and florescent lights turned on instantly which were the types of lights often used in conjunction with motion detectors or found on outside of homes or walkways. Those types of lights could not be used at the heights of the Airport fixtures because they did not have enough illumination to light the ground to any significant level. To get the illumination intensities they needed and keep poles up so there was some economy of installation, the motion sensors would not work out well. Council Member Eakins clarified the source of the light was the sodium. Mr. Myers said yes. Council Member Eakins asked whether it was anticipated that traffic would increase, and, if so, what difference that would make for wildlife habitat and surrounding areas. Mr. Bennett said there was nothing in the project designed to increase activity or traffic. The Airport had a Master Plan and the present capacity was using 60 to 65 percent of that capacity for which it was designed. 11/23/98 87-314
Council Member Eakins asked whether the longer runway meant more planes. Mr. Bennett said the runway was not going to be longer. The pavement on each end of the runway would not allow use for takeoffs and landings but could only be used if an aircraft could not come to a complete stop by the end of the runway. In reality, the runway would be shortened by 60 feet due to the location of the landing aid. The lighting was for safety as well as security.
Lights that cycled on and off would not meet the project=s security objective. Council Member Eakins said she was satisfied with the sodium source. Council Member Wheeler asked whether an airport the size of Palo
Alto=s needed regulations in place that dictated the maximum size of any aircraft that could land. Mr. Bennett said the criteria for determining the size of an aircraft were weight bearing capacity and the design criteria for clearances on the runway. The Airport was designed for a utility-type aircraft and small single light twin-engine aircraft less than 12,500 pounds. Council Member Wheeler asked whether there was anything in the project which would enable a change in the type and size of the aircraft that could land at the Airport. Mr. Bennett said no.
Mr. Gilliland clarified staff=s intention was that the five-foot
fence would be the entire area, not just along the runway. Staff=s intent was for a four-inch clearance at the bottom of the fence with five-foot of fence fabric above that. If the fence was six-foot, there would be an issue with the fence ordinance which allowed a maximum of six-feet in height. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, appellant, said her initial letter laid out her concerns about the project. She appreciated
staff=s proposals for modifications to make the project less onerous and that the applicant was willing to accept the modifications. She was still concerned about the fencing of the open space area that adjoined the runway and levy. As Mr. Boursier stated earlier, the largest animal seen was a jack rabbit. She was under the assumption there were dogs, animals such as coyotes getting on the runway. She was not aware of any documentation to the effect that there was a clear problem statement defined as to what the concern was. Nonetheless, five feet was better than six feet, and she hoped there would be careful restrictions on the fences not to disturb the existing landscaping along the levy. There was much vegetation, and she hoped that would not be
11/23/98 87-315
disturbed as it took a long time for those plants to reach their maturity. She understood that the major concern with lighting was vandalism on aircraft. The Airport newsletter said most of the vandalism occurred when people flew into the Airport in the middle of the night, stripped a plane in ten minutes, and took off again. She understood there was night security personnel who had completely interceded with the vandalism problems. The fencing along Embarcadero Road was supposed to be a scenic corridor, and she felt landscaping should be required to screen the fence if that corner were to be fenced. Another concern was when Santa Clara County (the County) had both the Yacht Harbor and the Airport under its jurisdiction, ten acres of wetlands was excavated from the Yacht Harbor and filled from the first runway toward the levy. The Baylands Master Plan called for open space in that area with no second runway. The fences were incompatible with open space. The modification was a definite improvement over the original proposal, but some history needed to be realized to know that there had already been tremendous degradation in the wetland area. At an earlier meeting, Peter Carpenter had pointed out some of the egregious lighting the City and the State had placed along Bayshore Road which illustrated the need for the City to take a comprehensive look at what was being allowed adjacent to a nature preserve and along a scenic corridor. She felt the Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) lighting could be the same type as the
proposed Αcutoff lights.≅ Both the lighting and the fencing were major urbanization of Baylands areas. She would continue to have concerns and hoped the Council would try to mitigate the problems. She preferred security lighting until it was demonstrated that the security personnel had not been successful in cutting off the main source of aircraft vandalism. She believed the fencing would be a step in the right direction combined with the security personnel and should suffice without the over-intrusion of the lighting. There was an issue with regard to how lighting affected birds, and the City should err on the side of caution in a wildlife preserve area. Council Member Mossar recalled from a previous meeting that there was a part of the fencing that the appellant was concerned with, and she asked whether Ms. Renzel had changed her mind. Ms. Renzel preferred not to see fencing or lighting. There was no argument with the major part of the project. She had been persuaded that moving the fence inward toward the runway would not be preferable to what had been proposed. It was better to be screened close into the vegetation that was below the levy currently, as long as it did not result in decimation of all of the vegetation. There was also small wildlife species there. Council Member Mossar said one evening she had spent time viewing the general area to see what various people had talked about in terms of lighting. Some of those problems were mentioned regarding
the City=s facilities, though the worst lights on the golf course
11/23/98 87-316
were turned off after play. She hoped Ms. Renzel was not suggesting the lighting proposal before the Council that evening did not differ from the lighting that existed currently at City facilities. She asked if the lighting were comparable. Mr. Renzel said the flood lighting at the golf course was not comparable to what was being proposed, it was more the general urban intrusion of lighting in an area not currently well lit that she objected to and felt would be detrimental to the wildlife area. The City had had site and design review in the developed areas of the Baylands, but over the last few years, had not been paying attention to the changes that had been taking place. Council Member Mossar said while standing at the edge of the wetlands and looking back at the WQCP, the Airport, and the golf course, it seemed that much of the lighting, though bright and glaring, was shielded from the wetlands by substantial landscaping. She asked how Ms. Renzel would feel about dense vegetation around the Airport to shield the wetlands from lighting. Mr. Renzel said it would be very difficult. There was high ground water with a salty ground water table. The Airport had safety requirements that would not allow vegetation to get too tall near aircraft runways, so she would not hold out much hope for that solution. She felt it was a different matter with respect to birds and fences. Peter Carpenter, Chairman for the Joint Community Relations Committee for the Airport, 1 Larch Drive, Atherton, thanked the staff and the County for the four years of effort that had gone into getting the project where it was currently and to Ms. Renzel
for her excellent presentation. Airports such as Palo Alto=s were becoming sanctuaries for endangered species. He had read recently in the San Jose Mercury News that the spotted owl was moving to the San Jose Airport and the Moffett Airport. They were observed at the Palo Alto Airport where they sat beneath the light that illuminated the windsock to stay warm. On the East Coast, in an article in the Washington Post, the air bases around Washington, DC, had become a favorite site of the Audubon Society because of the many endangered species which did not exist in other areas. There was reference made that evening to the absence of data with regard to what happened with lighting. The Joint Community Relations Committee had conducted a 20-year experiment in the Baylands. He distributed photographs which displayed nine light fixtures that were closer to the Baylands than anything that had been proposed and were in use throughout the night. There were a number of lights which were more obtrusive and dramatically closer to the areas of concern and were located directly adjacent to the duck pond. There was no evidence presented that the lights had any impact on the wildlife. He suggested a mitigation measure since the park was closed at night. The measure could be to ask staff to turn the lights off because they provided no security, no safety,
11/23/98 87-317
and no functional use, as opposed to the lights being proposed, which would not illuminate the area. He recommended that the Council approve the project as modified and accepted by the applicant so the Airport Capital Improvement Program could be put into place. Gordon Reade, 2266 Bryant Street, lived in Palo Alto all his life, had benefitted greatly, and wanted to give something back to the community. For the past ten years, he had worked as a flight instructor, which he did in part for the City and for the people in the community who wanted the best available flight instruction in the world. He urged the Council to support the Airport Capital Improvement Plan. Ann Elsbach, General Manager, West Valley Flying Club, 1901 Embarcadero Road #100, was also a Joint Community Relations Committee member, an FAA Appointed Accident Prevention Counselor, and a Sierra Club member. One of the major safety issues at the Airport was the runway. The safety aspect of the lighting had not been discussed much. She was uncomfortable when walking across the very dark area at night. There was a problem with parking the aircraft. The aircraft had to be pushed back into a dark tie-down, wings hit wings, markings could not be seen well, the numbers were difficult to read even in the daytime, and people parked in the wrong place. With regard to the radio thefts, the security had not proven to be the answer. The security personnel could not see very well either, which a problem. There were a lot of shadows and places to hide. The Airport desperately needed the lighting. People flew in from all over, and the word was that the Palo Alto Airport was the worst looking in the entire Bay Area. Part of the reason was that four years prior the FAA approved funding for the Airport and nothing had begun. She hoped the Council would approve the recommendation so the project could finally get underway. Andy Brown, 5 Arastradero Road, Portola Valley, had an aircraft at the Airport and was a member of an organization called The Flying Doctors. Once a month he and/or other pilots flew teams of volunteer medical personnel to Mexico. Their preference both for safety and comfort for the passengers was to fly during the day. The Airport without lighting was a scary place for both him and his passengers. He could not perceive how lighting might encourage night flying because most pilots preferred the safety and comfort of daylight flying. Eugene Ladd, 901 San Antonio Road, was a pilot and probably took off and landed from the Airport 5,000 or 6,000 times. He agreed with earlier comments that the runway was the worst he had encountered in the Bay Area and across the country. The lighting situation was deplorable. He flew on a daily basis, and from October through March, he was often flying at night. It was difficult to navigate because of the poor visibility due to lack of lighting. He felt the Airport Improvement Plan addressed the
11/23/98 87-318
concerns and issues raised, and implored the Council to approve the Airport Improvement Plan. Michal Anne Plume, 3409 Cowper Street, was a pilot and enjoyed flying. The Airport had a good neighbor line because of complaints of aircraft flying over, and most of the time the planes were from Moffett or SFIA Airports. The Airport manager, Larry Feldman, had personally spoken to those people who complained, and he could identify those aircraft that were from the Palo Alto Airport. The Airport was self-supporting. No money came from the General Funds of the City or County. The Airport taxes funded the Palo Alto schools and the Santa Clara County General Fund. In that sense, the project would be free. The FAA paid 90 percent, and the additional 10 percent was paid by the Airport users through their enterprise fund. With regard to theft, the Palo Alto Airport was the most burglarized general aviation airport in the United States. At least once a year through Young Eagles, children were flown free in order to convince them to become pilots; The Flying Doctors donated their time to help people in Mexico; many pilots during the 1989 earthquake flew to help Watsonville of which the Palo Alto Airport was the only way in or out for four days; people trained to become airline pilots; and a group called Angel Flight donated time, money, fuel, and aircraft to fly people who could get medical help but did not have the money to get to those facilities. The Airport was getting very dangerous, and she wanted the ability to take off and land safely. When she landed after dark, she had a problem with the 200-yard walk to her car by herself. She urged the Council to approve the Airport Master Plan. Council Member Ojakian asked what the high rate of vandalism was based on. Ms. Plume said the statistics came from the California Aeronautical Education Foundation. Vandalism was a byproduct of the thefts. The thefts were very specific; and to date, none of the thieves had been caught so it was unknown whether they came in by air or car or both. They stole specific items and broke into the aircraft to get specific items. Roy Kaufmann, 1663 Glenroy Drive, San Jose, had a plane tied down in Palo Alto since 1976, and he believed that security and safety at the Airport was long overdue. He was not concerned with the height of the fence or if the lights were four-foot candle-powered. The important issue was the safety and security of fencing and lights. Robert Lenox, President of the Airport Association, 1745 Webster Street, said the Airport had been a wonderful facility, but over the years, it became run down. The improvements were necessary. That prior August, a scrubber was installed so the runoff from the aircraft wash rack could take out the heavy metals before the waste water was sent to the WQCP and discharged into the Bay. He believed that everyone was concerned with the environment and 11/23/98 87-319
wildlife. However, Palo Alto was a large urban area, and it was important that the Council to support the Airport. Richard Palm, 67 Eldora Drive, Mountain View, was a customer of several businesses at the Airport and believed the proposed fencing was a safety and security issue. If a child should be injured by an aircraft because of running onto the runway from the surrounding trails, the issue of fencing would become less controversial. There was a need for balancing the needs of humanity and wildlife, and he believed that the proposal as presented did a good job of keeping that balance. He supported the proposal. Alexandra Salomon, 619 Prospect Street, San Carlos, was a relatively new pilot and had been flying out of Palo Alto for only a couple of months. She asked that people imagine taxiing to the parking space being similar to driving down a freeway with no lights for direction and no lines for separation between cars in the next lane, and then add wings to the car that could easily strike propellers or such while driving in that lane. The Council was dealing with practical issues in terms of airport use, not to mention the paving of the taxiing areas. She supported the Airport Improvement project. The issue was the safety of the pilots and the people walking to and from the planes that most concerned her, even though the habitat issues were also important. She looked forward to operating an aircraft for many years to come with the confidence that the area supported safe flying. Bob Henshel, 4014 Amaranta, said the Airport from the sky was the darkest spot seen when flying over Palo Alto. A few years prior, he had an airplane stolen and found out that insurance companies did not want to give what the plane was worth, and a lot came out of his own pocket. He would like to see the Airport lighting improved, and he supported the Airport Master Plan. Patricia Roy, Roy Enterprises, 1901 Embarcadero Road, said her company was one of two Fixed Base Operators (FBO) at the Airport. She had been a lease holder for the past 20 years and was familiar with the evolution of which comments were heard that evening. She had seen the Airport deteriorate, but not because of lack of effort on the part of the Airport community nor the County. There was no doubt that maintaining an airport was an extraordinarily expensive project. Currently, there was an opportunity to remedy the ills of more than 20 years and improve the Airport to become a true asset to Palo Alto. Everything heard that evening about safety and security of the Airport was of paramount importance. She invited the Council to go out to the Airport at night and see the 100+ acres which were totally unlit. Steve Lefton, 4284 Manuela Avenue, moved to Palo Alto in 1973 primarily because there was an Airport, and he had his plane there six weeks after he bought his house. He volunteered for the United States Geological Survey whose geologists liked to load their planes at night. Lighting was a major problem as well as security 11/23/98 87-320
in relation to theft. He pointed out on the map where his plane was located and the fact that six radios had been stolen from his row in the past year. In his row, there were planes with chains on the propellers to prevent them from being stolen. His plane had been in that location for approximately 20 years, and the only wildlife he had seen were jack rabbits, pheasants, geese, etc. He believed it would be to the animals benefit to keep them fenced out and away from the aircraft. He once had a close encounter with a bird. He was concerned about the need for a second runway at the airport. Safety was a concern with the pond located so close to the runway. There was probably $50 million to $100 million worth of aircraft at the Airport with no lighting. He felt the Airport was a worthy cause and asked the Council to support the proposal. Curt Weil, member of Airport Joint Community Relations Committee, 867 Lincoln Avenue, said the Committee had worked long and hard over the previous four years on the project. He reminded the Council that half of the Committee members were appointed by the Mayor and the other half by the County. He asked the Council to honor the work that had been done as requested and approve the project as presented. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said at the previous Council meeting, a policy decision was made to have staff meet with the applicant to try and reach a compromise. At that meeting, the applicant refused to compromise, and staff decided not to conduct additional
meetings. In November=s West Valley Flying Club newsletter, it was reported that a compromise was being worked out to get the lighting coverage needed to satisfy the Council. Mr. Bennett had indicated he did not learn of the fencing modifications until the previous Friday and was surprised that the advocates of lighting were able to make a compromise between the Airport operator and staff when
the Council=s direction was that there be a compromise between the applicant and the appellant, and the applicant did not want to compromise. No one opposed the paving of the existing runway. Instead, the County hijacked the project for repaving and held it hostage to get approval of other demands to effectively increase the length of the runway to almost 3,000 feet by adding two safety areas. In Palo Alto, there was a Master Plan that limited the length of the runway to 2,500 feet. Palo Alto Airport was the highest volume airport of its runway size, and the planes that came in were using the entire 2,500 feet. If the runway was increased by 480 feet, there would be no effective controls on other aircraft using the runway because a new use permit could not be issued as the Airport predated the need for a use permit in that zone. The original justification for the apron lights was for security in terms of theft, and the fencing was to be paid for by the FAA if it were boundary fencing rather than fencing closer to the runway. He provided some documentation to the Council. The first document was a July newsletter from the West Valley Flying Club pointing out that the thefts at the Airport were caused by people flying into the airport and security personnel would solve the problem, not lighting. The next document was Council Minutes from September 8,
11/23/98 87-321
1997, when the Joint Community Relations Committee came before the Council asking for an audit of County operations because it felt the County was holding back funds earmarked for Palo Alto that was needed for capital improvements and security. In December of 1997, there was a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) for the audit to go back to Council at the end of January which had not happened. If there were money from the County to pay for more security, there should be money for 24-hour security. The next document was the minutes of the Board approving the Environmental Declaration. Supervisor Simitian did not attend but would be the person to look into the funding for the security. Next was a document from the Court of Federal Regulations which indicated to justify apron lighting, a certain level of present and future night operations had to be justified. In terms of fencing, to get the FAA to fund rather than the County, the fence had to be on the boundary rather than closer in. Finally, was a document including budget information which indicated what a small part fencing and lighting were to the project, and there were no FAA standards for lighting. Doug Bourn, 641 Wilson Court, Santa Clara, had an airplane based at the Palo Alto Airport. At one time, he took a trip and parked his vehicle in the shadow of the tower. Upon his return, the truck had been broken into and items had been either removed or damaged. He believed that lighting in the area would be a plus. Thieves had no better ally than darkness, and he had personally experienced loss due to lack of lighting. With regard to paving, his aircraft was parked on a ramp area that had much loose pavement. The pavement had gotten worse from the flooding. The loose tarmac did affect the operations of the aircraft. When the aircraft was being pulled across the ramp area, the props pulled all the loose material up into the prop, which sometimes caused nicks and higher maintenance, and ultimately was a safety concern. He was lucky enough to have a tie down area across from a fuel island with some lighting. It was a great benefit to have some lighting when loading and unloading. On a couple of occasions, he had seen people running across the end of the runway where the aircraft were approaching or landing. It was a very dangerous situation, and fencing was definitely required to control the people in the area. Mr. Bennett clarified that the statement that he had just learned about the proposed fencing modification the previous Friday was true. He did learn about the proposed lighting modifications from staff earlier in the week. With regard to thefts, no one knew whether they were by air or land. There was speculation that the thefts were by air because it had occurred at airports throughout the country, but as indicated earlier, no one had seen anything. The entire project was an enhancement to the Airport, and as a government entity, both for the City and County, the project was
designed to reduce the Airport=s liability in all areas, operational, safety, and security
11/23/98 87-322
Ms. Renzel said Peter Carpenter had suggested mitigating the lighting on the airport side by turning off the lighting in the Baylands when it was closed. She did not object to turning off the lighting, but it was up to the people proposing the project to mitigate. Several people commented on the importance of the runway project which had not been objected to. Mr. Bennett had said that while there might be some renegotiation, removal of the lighting and fencing was not fatal to the remainder of the project. Others mentioned they cared about wildlife, but people were the priority. Wildlife thrived before people came. The environment was degraded and the wildlife populations was neglected and adversely impacted. The word balance was used, and over time wildlife was routinely and progressively lost in those balances. Bayshore Highway was named so because it was located on the edge of the Bay. The golf course, airport and businesses along Embarcadero Road, and the landfill were on former wetland that was part of San Francisco Bay. It had been balanced many times, and each time wildlife lost a little more habitat. With regard to a comment about lights and lines to guide parking, lines could be painted and did not require lights. Brad Walker, Santa Clara County Airport Commission, said the Commission had reviewed the project since early 1994. Staff had met with the public and reported back every other month for the past year with regard to the progress of the project. The previous week at the Commission meeting the prior week, a poll was taken and all of the members supported the project. He could safely say that the Commission supported the project as amended. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the Public Hearing. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation that the City Council approve the project as recommended by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and approved by the Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment with the following conditions. 1. The perimeter fence shall be a maximum of five feet in height with a minimum four-inch clearance along the bottom (for all sections of the fencing), and 2. The number of light poles and luminaries as shown on the plans from Shutt Moen Associates, dated December 1997, shall be reduced by at least six light poles and luminaries in the areas closest to the duck pond and Baylands area. Council Member Ojakian thanked the staff for the recommendation. The difficulty in dealing with the runway issue was that the applicant had tied all the elements together. No one objected to the repairs on the runway. He felt there should not be safety issues at the Airport and also that people should be able to enjoy
11/23/98 87-323
the use of the property. With regard to the fence, staff had proposed a nice alternative that seemed acceptable to most of the people present that evening and seemed to fall with some of the expert testimony received. The lighting was an issue that had been difficult, especially because it dealt more with security than with safety. He was moved by some of the testimony with regard to the difficulty in maneuvering a plane and the 200-yard walking distance in the dark. He was not convinced that lighting was the sole solution. The question he was going to ask the Airport manager was what was planned for additional security. He was also moved by the testimony with regard to the high level of vandalism and theft that went on which he did not want to see continued. The fact that the project was funded was always a plus. Council Member Kniss appreciated the applicant attending the meeting with good staff to answer questions. The Airport was an area where a number of people walked and ran, and it sounded as if it would be much safer if the runway were repaired. The answers received that evening regarding the fence and wildlife were more than adequate. She supported the motion. Council Member Huber said he supported the motion on the issue at the meeting in August and would still support the motion. The Council was often faced with situations of trying to balance a safety issue with impacts on the environment. His sense was that the environmental impacts were not documented and relatively minor compared to the overall safety aspects that would be accomplished with fencing and lighting. Council Member Mossar said she did not have a problem with the repaving part of the project. At the meeting in August, the question was asked whether the repaving could be done while the issues of fencing and lighting were explored and the Council was
told Αno≅ by the applicant as they wanted to proceed with the entire project. As regrettable as the fence was, she was comfortable with it, although the appellant made a couple of good points. The points were to make sure existing vegetation was not damaged and that some buffer landscaping along Embarcadero Road be added as a condition. She hoped the makers of the motion would be willing to include that. She was having a hard time with the lighting issue. There was a letter in the Council packet from an environmental consultant not present that evening. The consultant stated that because there was egregious lighting in the Baylands currently, there should be no problem with the lighting as proposed. That piqued her curiosity. She had spent time the previous Saturday at the Airport, the WQCP, the wetlands, and the golf course. From her viewpoint, the most egregious lighting in the area was some glary lighting in the Airport parking lot. Even though the wetlands area was located at the Airport and not a particularly rural use, it did have a rural feeling. She regretted the notion that when the project was finished there would be 42, 32-foot poles shining light every night of the year. It was like a
11/23/98 87-324
parking lot, and it might not be lit as brightly as a major shopping center as stated by the consultant, but it was at the edge of the Baylands. She was concerned about the impacts of the
lighting. She appreciated staff=s attempt to move the lighting away from the edge of the wetlands. It was not the duck pond that was next to the area but the wetlands. At night it was full of bird life feeding and a wonderful place to be, and it would not be the same again if the lighting were added. She supported the repaving and the fencing, protecting the landscaping and adding the buffer. She was willing to look at a project that provided additional lighting, but the lighting as proposed was extreme, and she could not support the entire motion. Council Member Eakins said the runway needed to be repaved. She too had visited the Airport. She complimented the members of the public as she could not recall having such a good-natured advocacy group. The changes to the fence were acceptable. She wanted to see landscaping added and current landscaping protected, and she hoped that would be incorporated into the motion. She supported the motion, even though she felt the lighting was a problem. It was basically an obtrusive use in the general wetlands area, but it predated the environmental protection which was justified. Council Member Wheeler said the project was long in coming, and in
June she was not convinced by the County=s presentation to go beyond the repair of the runway. In the interim, with much hard
work on the part of staff and the appellants and the County=s willingness to admit to the legitimacy of those issues and address them, she believed the Council had a better project before it that evening and one which she could support. Council Member Fazzino agreed that everyone had approached the issue in a constructive and collaborative way and tried to reach a compromise which addressed both safety and environmental concerns raised by the appellant. He was sensitive to the issues both Council Members Mossar and Wheeler had raised and pleased with the amendments. If the issue of the Airport was just beginning, he would probably feel differently about some of the issues, but the Airport was in Palo Alto, and the Council had a responsibility to ensure that it was a safe operation. The repaving represented reasonable improvements. He preferred landscaping around the entire parameter of the Airport to a fence. Given the situation with respect to the existing operation, to selecting the compromise proposal was reasonable. Lighting was a concern, but staff had done what they could to reduce the negative impact of the original proposal, and the reduction was a reasonable compromise. He supported the motion although there were some lingering concerns about the lighting issue. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said staff requested that consideration be given to ARB review of the landscaping along Embarcadero Road.
11/23/98 87-325
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to include protection for existing vegetation along the levee during the construction phase and to add landscaping along Embarcadero Road to screen the fencing, with the landscaping to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). MOTION PASSED 7-1, Mossar "no," Schneider absent. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to direct staff to agendize an item to explore opportunities to minimize the impacts of lighting in City facilities. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. RECESS AT 9:47 PM TO 10:20 PM TO A CLOSED SESSION The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Labor Negotiations and Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Items 1 and 3. Mayor Rosenbaum announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1. Mayor Rosenbaum announced the following action was taken on Agenda Item No. 3. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Fazzino, to reject arbitration of an award of $21,000 in favor of Christine Chang. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Kniss "no," Schneider absent. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
12. The Policy and Services Committee re Revisions to the City=s Flood Hazard Regulations (PAMC Chapter 16.52) MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the item to a date uncertain. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. 13. The Policy and Services Committee re San Francisco International Airport Generated Aircraft Noise Council Member Fazzino said the recommendations stood alone. There was a significant concern raised by members of the public that Palo Alto did not yet have standing with respect to the issue, either through the San Mateo County Airport Community Roundtable (Roundtable) or other groups. The major issues that evening were:
11/23/98 87-326
1) to continue to pursue opportunities to be at the table and have an opportunity to deal directly with the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) with respect to airport noise affecting Palo Alto and neighboring cities; and 2) given the increased airport noise in Palo Alto, which was a different issue for Palo Alto than it was for North San Mateo County communities, to identify a telephone hotline to establish to what degree airport noise was a problem for Palo Alto. Richard Gruen, P. O. Box 2351, emphasized that Palo Alto was in a different situation than that of San Mateo. Flights arriving from the Pacific did not bother Palo Alto, but flights from Southern California or sometimes from the east, primarily at night, were a problem. One reason the approaches to SFIA operated differently at night than during the day had to do with the altitude an airplane was asked to fly when approaching San Francisco. Three altitudes used in the past were 2,500 feet, 4,000 feet, and 6,000 feet which were the charted altitudes to use as an emergency altitude, and the Federal Aviation Association (FAA) was of the opinion that one could fly safely at 6,000 feet. If the airplanes crossed the relevant Menlo intersection past the Palo Alto Airport (PA Airport) at 6,000 feet, 82 percent of the noise dissipated before the airplanes got to the ground. If the airplanes were to fly at 4,000 feet as was done during the day rather than 2,500 feet during the night, 60 percent of the noise would dissipate. The reason airplanes flew at different altitudes during the day was because the PA Airport served as a protection during the day. The PA Airport had a jurisdiction from zero to 3,000 feet and Bay Tracon from zero to 10,000 feet. There was an agreement between the two known as Bay Approach Control which agreed that PA Airport would only own air space up to 3,000 feet, and Bay Tracon would own the space from 4,000 feet up. The space between 3,000 and 4,000 feet would require that one facility call the other for coordination. Because it caused more work for the controller, the phone call necessary for coordination was not made. During the day, Bay Tracon brought aircraft in at 4,000 feet. Sixty percent of the noise which could be heard at 2,500 feet was gone, so the problem was primarily heard after 8:00 p.m. when the PA Airport Tower closed. It was the FAA that needed to be influenced in order for something to happen and not SFIA which had to accept how the FAA controlled airplane arrivals. His point was that small variations in altitudes airplanes crossed over Palo Alto made a difference. Part of the change occurred ten years prior when 2,500 feet was made available due to the addition of the terminal control area in the Bay Area. Prior to that, there was no requirement for small or large airplanes below 4,000 feet and the airplanes were kept above 4,000 feet all the time. Once the 2,500-foot altitude came about, which applied to half of Palo Alto and all the area from Palo Alto north, the FAA had the opportunity to bring the airplanes in lower.
The FAA=s legislation stated they would provide the highest degree of safety which said nothing with regard to noise or what the public wanted. He believed that if 4,000 feet was safe during the
11/23/98 87-327
day, it should be safe at night also, which was something the FAA might accept. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, urged the Council to support the recommendation. At the September meeting, the SFIA Community Liaison Roger Chinn commented on working with airlines to clean up
the Αdirty flights.≅ She would like the Αdirty flights≅ cleaned up, but wanted the Council to remember that it was not just one or two flights a day that were the problem, but 50 or 60 flights a day that were loud. For that reason, the single incident tracking was extremely important. Some flights were exceptionally loud, but because the overhead flights were not consistent, Palo Alto was considered exempt because there were several hours in between where that did not happen. For instance, the flights did not fly over every one or two minutes, 24 hours a day, which was the requirement under the current law to trigger the 65-decibel limit. That was not an appropriate way to deal with noise. A single 75-decibel incident at 2:00 a.m. deprived her of sleep, regardless of when the next flight occurred. Many of the issues were localized. The previous speaker mentioned flights arriving from Southern California were the concern, and primarily at night. She heard those as well. She enjoyed being in her garden during the day but could not because of the Point Reyes flights that came down the Peninsula and made a U-turn, either over Stanford or College Terrace. The airplanes were principally 747 aircraft and while turning, the sound was directed downward at the residents. In addition, as the planes made the turn they were powering up, so the noise produced was horrific. While she appreciated her sleep during the night, she also liked to garden in the afternoon. She urged the Council to keep those things in mind as the recommendation moved forward. Jon Zweig, 365 Colorado Avenue, lived in Midtown and was at the convergence of the flight path for all of the Big Sur flights and some of the Point Reyes and Pacific flights. It was a big problem. He wrote letters to the Congress and the FAA and had been referred to the Roundtable. He was initially astonished when the Roundtable
turned down Palo Alto=s application for membership, particularly because they aggregated the number of complaints by member cities and Palo Alto was a member of All Others. All Others was the
highest or second highest complaint category for the Roundtable=s aggregation. He thought it was institutional arrogance on the part of the Roundtable, but now believed since Palo Alto was not being
aggregated, that Palo Alto=s complaints would not be heard. When the third runway was setup, if the plan were to stack the arriving
flights over Palo Alto, Palo Alto=s complaints would end up being masked within the All Others category. He thought the motion before the Council was a good start, and he would like the Council to think about forming a coalition with other South Bay communities to take possible legal action to block further SFIA expenditure until litigation could be demonstrated for the present noise level, much less further expansion.
11/23/98 87-328
Frank Sebastian, 50 Lilac, Atherton, said Atherton sat on the Roundtable for two years without a vote. He urged the Council to support the recommendation with the observation that Atherton led the way in getting a voice for South San Mateo County and SFIA was presently being more responsive. When Palo Alto was denied membership, Mr. Chinn was the SFIA Community liaison and was currently Deputy Director of Noise Abatement, so Atherton was getting attention. If Palo Alto supported the resolution, the solution would ultimately be achieved. MOTION: Chairperson Fazzino for the Policy and Services Committee moved to direct staff to: 1) initiate communications with John Martin, Director, San Francisco International Airport (SFIA), to
relay Palo Alto=s concerns regarding airport noise and develop strategies for resolving issues; 2) explore establishment of a telephone hotline and the possibility of a subsidy from SFIA for Palo Altans to register single-incident and ongoing noise complaints which could then be forwarded to the airport; 3) support
Council=s efforts to develop a coalition with other city officials, including members of the Airport/Community Roundtable (Roundtable) and those excluded from the Roundtable, to solicit support from Federal and State legislators; and 4) submit a request to Caltrans to regulate single-event aircraft noise. Council Member Mossar supported the Policy and Services Committee recommendations. For the Council to make a major commitment to airport noise required commitment of staff and some official Council assignments. She had attended several Stakeholder meetings for the runway reconfiguration, but the Council had not dealt with the issue as a legitimate assignment nor a commitment as a whole including a commitment of staff time to those issues. At the last meeting, the final decisions about the runway reconfiguration would be made by the Regional Airport Planning Committee (RAPC), which was made up of representatives from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Palo Alto would not be members of RAPC and had not been attending meetings, but there could be long-term interest in the outcome of those decisions which would be an additional burden to the Roundtable and Ad Hoc group. She referred to recommendation No. 4) submit a request to Caltrans to regulate
single-event aircraft noise, and said if she had read Mr. Chinn=s October 1, 1998, letter correctly, he cited a 1970 court case which prohibited the State of California from regulating single-event aircraft noise. If that were the case, she was not sure how much effort should be put into the issue. Acting Chief Transportation Official Ashok Aggarwal said the court case resulted from a variance which was issued to SFIA. Caltrans had mentioned the court case and how unlikely it would be to go into a single-event aircraft noise limit.
11/23/98 87-329
Council Member Mossar said a few days prior, the National Aeronautics and Space Association (NASA) stated it could no longer afford to maintain its runways and was looking at the possibility of opening up the runways to commercial aircraft. She asked whether staff had heard anything. Mr. Aggarwal said no, but approximately six to nine months earlier, he saw some newspaper articles regarding not only the larger commercial aircraft but also the smaller planes being considered for use of runways at Moffett Field. He also read some articles and letters showing opposition from Mountain View residents. Council Member Mossar said there was much going on with airplanes, and Palo Alto was greatly affected by SFIA. She felt affected, and the large crowd in the Chambers that evening was an indication that Palo Altans felt affected. She supported the recommendations and encouraged the Council to face the reality of making commitments to the issues. Roger Chinn, SFIA Community Liaison, clarified that the court case mentioned by Council Member Mossar was a legal suit from the State of California against the airlines. It was a battle between local government and the Aviation Transportation Association (ATA). He was chairman of the Roundtable at that time and supported the legal action, but unfortunately, the case was lost. That did not mean the issue could not be reopened. He took no position because it was a legal case and something that the Palo Alto City Council and the Roundtable members might want to look at again. Council Member Fazzino said SFIA Airport Director John Martin sent a letter dated October 20, 1998, to the Roundtable which gave a
statement, ΑI=m concerned that having individual cities hire outside law firms and consultants to address their own noise issues may promote solutions that will harm other communities and possibly
create schisms within the Roundtable,≅ and ΑIt would be more effective for the entire Roundtable to continue to work with the
Airport to obtain the outside expertise that is needed.≅ The letter sent a strong message to any city that the most effective vehicle to work with the Airport was the Roundtable. He wanted a commitment from Mr. Chinn and Mr. Martin to do whatever they could to make Palo Alto part of the Roundtable. Mr. Chinn said SFIA took no position on what cities were members of the Roundtable. He could not speak for Mr. Martin, but he had
spoken to Mr. Martin about Palo Alto=s situation on several occasions, and he was committed to working with Palo Alto, whether within or outside of the Roundtable. Mr. Martin had seen the recommendations and was interested in working with Palo Alto. He strongly urged the Council to appoint a committee and meet as soon as possible.
11/23/98 87-330
Council Member Fazzino asked whether Mr. Chinn agreed that the statement in the letter sent a strong message that cities not go off on their own and seek individual solutions but instead work through a single point of contact such as the Roundtable. Mr. Chinn said yes, within the context of the action by Foster City which hired legal counsel to evaluate a very complex issue and both sides agreed that SFIA had no authority to regulate aircraft in flight. That was the basic issue. Council Member Fazzino said the letter indicated any noise issues,
and Mr. Martin went on to say ΑI am confident this is not the case
with Foster City=s hiring of outside counsel.≅ He believed the message was clear. He acknowledged that Mr. Martin and SFIA had political issues to deal with, and recognized that Mr. Chinn probably could not say much that evening, but he got irritated when parochial local governments focused on their individual needs. Palo Alto and Santa Clara County had made significant progress over the prior 10 to 15 years to work together on issues of mutual interest, and he thought some of the attitudes and actions of some of the San Mateo County cities with respect to a truly regional issue in nature bordered on the deplorable. He believed SFIA could do much to make Palo Alto part of a single effort to address airport noise issues which impacted all cities through the Peninsula. Mr. Chinn said he would not have attended if he did not believe Mr. Martin was interested in helping Palo Alto. SFIA did not have the ability to tell the other member cities in the Roundtable to accept or deny a membership, but SFIA had stated that it was willing to discuss issues of Palo Alto. Council Member Ojakian thanked Mr. Chinn for attending the meeting and giving the Council the opportunity to speak directly to a
representative of SFIA. He referred to page 1 of Mr. Chinn=s
letter dated October 1, 1998, under point 4) ΑAt the present time, the reconfiguration study is not complete nor is there any proposal to build an additional runway or define the guidelines for a new
runway.≅ Almost simultaneously, to getting his letter, the Council received a letter from Cargill Salt Division in which they wanted
to clarify a point, ΑRecent news reports have chronicled the year-long campaign by one activist to close Cargill salt making operations in exchange for San Francisco Bay International
Airport=s proposed new runway.≅ He asked that the statement be clarified. Mr. Chinn clarified the statement and said to delete the words
Αadd≅ or Αadd an additional≅ to reconfigure the runways. At that time, there was no steady developing of alternatives, but SFIA had those alternatives presently. There were six alternatives including reconfigured runways and one additional runway in just
11/23/98 87-331
about every scenario. Participation by communities such as Palo Alto was important to SFIA. In reviewing the alternatives, he believed there were some noise mitigation measures that could be generated to help the south Peninsula including Palo Alto. Some of the earlier statements needed to be reevaluated. Higher altitude arrivals from Big Sur and Point Reyes were being looked at. The reason for the higher altitude was because aircraft at a higher altitude had to go into a glide power off mode instead of a power on lower altitude emergency procedure. There were many things that could be done besides a runway. A runway that was 4,500 feet out in the Bay would cause airplanes to be higher crossing the Peninsula, so by the time they were in the glide pattern, they were further out before starting to descend. He wanted to be fair and
bring those things to the Council=s attention because SFIA and Palo Alto needed to work together. He believed solutions could be found. The alternatives were moving forward quickly, and Palo Alto needed to participate. The six alternatives would be brought to the Roundtable on December 2, 1998. Palo Alto should participate, even though it was not a member of the Roundtable and raise issues
that needed to be brought to the Roundtable=s attention. Palo Alto also needed to participate in the meetings that Mr. Martin was willing to hold. Council Member Ojakian said the Council would need to look at any increase in airport traffic because as was illustrated that evening, the community was already concerned about what was going on. He suggested that Mr. Chinn convey that information to SFIA. Mr. Chinn said he would be happy to meet with the Council and share information. There was a great concern that there was a major increase in flight procedures in future years, and he did not know the answers yet. He had been involved with the situation for 30 years and came as a supporter of noise mitigation for all communities. Council Member Huber supported the motion. He had the pleasure of signing the letter when Palo Alto was mistakenly invited to join the Roundtable. He believed the most critical part of the proposal was what, if anything, Palo Alto was going to do to join with other communities in and around the area, i.e., Santa Clara County, North County, and Southern San Mateo Counties, to see what could be accomplished. If there were a solution to the problem, it was strictly political. It was a question of who had the clout and could force something to happen. Quentin Kopp did not do anything in the Transportation Committee, and Congresswoman Anna Eschoo could barely do anything. It was an FAA political problem, and the more pressure put on, the more likely some result would be generated. The efforts on noise generation were great, but the reality when push came to shove and nothing could be done, was the FAA. Otherwise, it was just talk with nothing accomplished. Secondly, there should be some effort made to push SFIA or the Roundtable to do some actual noise monitoring in Palo Alto. He
11/23/98 87-332
doubted that would be done, but staff needed to look at whether Palo Alto should do something similar to what was done with the Shoreline Amphitheatre. MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Schneider absent. RESOLUTIONS 14. Approval of Loan Commitment to Mid-peninsula Housing Coalition to Acquire Palo Alto Gardens Apartments at 648 San Antonio Road; Funding Mechanisms in Support of Acquisition; and Public Hearing on Possible Submittal of a Section 108 Loan Guarantee Application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Sally Probst, representing the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, 735 Coastland Drive, thanked the Council for having two items on the agenda regarding affordable housing. She was happy the Sheridan Apartment item was accomplished with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) and that the Council was starting up the complicated item regarding financing the Palo Alto Garden Apartments project with Mid-peninsula Housing Coalition (MPHC). The League supported the loan guarantee. Ms. Shreberic, representing the tenants of Palo Alto, 632 San Antonio Road, expressed gratitude to the Council and staff for their efforts to keep Palo Alto Garden Apartments affordable for low income people. The MPHC was ready to buy the apartment building, and the current owner agreed to sell it. The Council was asked to support a resolution approving the commitment of loans to MPHC. It was an important step to preserve the apartment building for elderly, disabled, and other low income people. Patricia Saffir, 2719 Bryant Street, supported the proposal. An affordable Palo Alto Gardens was still critically needed in Palo Alto. It would help make Palo Alto the kind of diverse community that she personally wanted to continue to live in. She thanked the staff, the Council, and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for their efforts. She urged the Council to make the commitment of City funds. Trina Lovercheck, member of Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee, 1070 McGregor Way, supported the staff recommendation and urged the Council to approve the loan commitment of up to $1 million. Preserving affordable housing was important
for Palo Alto to do. She was appreciative to the staff=s hard work and commitment to make the project happen. Council Member Wheeler said the project had started about two years prior when she was Mayor; and at that time, it was not possible to look forward to the first hopeful sign in an otherwise discouraging process.
11/23/98 87-333
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino to approve the staff recommendations as follows: 1. Support the proposed acquisition of the Palo Alto Gardens Apartments by Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (MPHC) by adopting the Resolution approving a loan commitment from
the City=s Housing Development Fund to MPHC in an amount not to exceed $1 million; 2. Direct staff to seek the most advantageous funding mechanisms and return to Council by early March 1999 with the funding plan and a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO); 3. As Federal requirements dictate, hold a public hearing for Federal allocation purposes to receive citizen comments on the submittal of a Section 108 Loan Guarantee application to the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and 4. Authorize the City Manager to prepare and execute a
letter indicating the City=s loan commitment, to be submitted by MPHC with the tax exempt bond allocation application and with any other financing applications required for the project.
Resolution No. 7815 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving a Loan Commitment to the Mid-peninsula Housing Coalition to Assist in the Acquisition of
the Palo Alto Gardens Apartments at 648 San Antonio Road≅ Council Member Wheeler said the project was one of the larger affordable housing developments within Palo Alto that housed some special residents and was affordable for senior citizens and of the country. The population was diverse. The meeting she attended at the Palo Alto Gardens was also attended by three different language interpreters. Replacing their housing would be impossible to replace their housing in any other fashion or with any kind of speed necessary to protect their ability to remain in Palo Alto without the modest amount of insurance by the Council with little risk to the City. The financing package put together by MPHC was attractive and clever, and she was pleased MPHC was able to work with Goldrich, Kest and Associates to convince them to sell the project to a group who would keep the housing as affordable into future years for people that really needed it. Council Member Fazzino thought the Council should pause and reflect on such a remarkable achievement. He commended the City staff and MPHC on their efforts to make the project a reality. A year prior he did not believe the project was possible based on what was known and the obstacles facing them. He was not aware that Association of Bay Area Governments could float bonds of that size. It was a
11/23/98 87-334
wonderful achievement and preserved many affordable units in the community. Council Member Eakins agreed with her colleagues and expressed her gratitude for the good news. She recalled testimony heard several months prior where people were extremely distraught, and it was
gratifying to see those people=s smiling faces that evening. She was happy to support the motion and to support continuing diversity in the community. MOTION PASSED: 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Fazzino noted that SB 139 permitted Council Members to participate in meetings by a video or telephone conference. He was going to be absent when the Council would be voting conceptual approval for the historic preservation ordinance. Because of the importance of the issue, he requested informal approval to participate by phone. The Public Hearing was scheduled for December 7, 1998, and the Council would be making its decision on December 8, 1998, or possibly the following week. Council Members thought the issue was important and would approve the item. City Attorney Ariel Calonne emphasized that Council Member
Fazzino=s participation required the capability of two-way communication. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said staff was working out the details of arranging video or telephone conferencing. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are
11/23/98 87-335
available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
11/23/98 87-336