HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-18 City Council (7)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
6
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:MAY 18, 1998 CMR:240:98
SUBJECT."1925 EMBARDACERO ROAD: APPEAL OF THE INTERIM
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S
DECISION BASED ON THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE SAFETY AND OPERATIONAL
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PALO ALTO AIRPORT.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends the Council uphold the decision of the Interim Director of Plarming and
Community Environment for approval of the Palo Alto Airport application (98-ARB-16, 98-
EIA-3), as approved by the Architectural Review Board at its April 2, 1998 meeting.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The proposed project includes a runway and taxiway overlay, safety area improvements (new
lighting and .striping), drainage improvements, perimeter security fencing and gate
installation, apron rehabilitation and apron secttrity lighting.
The existing airplane parking areas (aprons) will be lighted to deter vandalism and increase
safety. The lighting will be placed on 42 poles, each 32 feet in height. Each pole will contain
single or double 400 watt high-pressure sodium light fixtures. The majority of the proposed
improvements are to meet current FAA safety and operational requirements. Runway
directional lights and striping will also be improved. Approximately 5,707 linear feet of 6-
foot, black vinyl-coated chain link security fence will parallel the runway and enclose the
airport property along Embarcadero Road and at the existing tenrhnal building.
At both ends of Runway 12/30, a safety area measuring 120 feet wide by 240 feet long will
be created. Safety areas are required by current FAA design criteria for the purpose of
reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an "undershoot" or "overshoot’’~-
CMR: 240:98 Page 1 of 4
during landing, The safety areas are used only during an emergency, to provide an additional
measure of aircraft safety. The proposed safety areas will be graded and paved to create an
"all-weather" surface. The actual take-off and landing area for planes will be reduced by
approximately 60 feet from the current end of the runway. On September 9, 1997, the Santa
Clara County Board of Supervisors, as lead agency, approved the proposed project and
adopted an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (Environmental Impact Assessment). The
Initial Study and CEQA Notice of Determination are included as Attachment E. Please also
refer to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) staff report (Attachment A) for a complete
project description.
Appeal
On April 17, 1998, an appeal was filed by Emily Renzel (Baylands Conservation Committee)
and Florence La Riviere (Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge). Their objections
include the type and extent of fencing proposed, the type and amount of security lighting
proposed, and the project’s potential impacts to local wildlife. The appeal letter, dated April
16, 1998 is included as Attachment B.
The following section addresses each of the points made by the appeal letter (numbers
correspond to the items listed in appeal letter):
As proposed, the perimeter fencing is designed with a continuous 3-inch gap between
the bottom of the fence and the ground and not intermittent holes. This will allow
movement through the area by small animals such as the salt marsh harvest mouse.
Keeping people and animals offofthe runway is an important safety issue for users
of the airport facility. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) strongly
recommends the use of perimeter fencing for this very reason. Airport personnel have
indicated that hikers in the area near the end of the runway .will often ’cut the comer,’
traversing off the trail and coming onto airport property, which affects airplane use.
The only reason that Coyote Bush is proposed at the end of the runway, rather than
a_ _f_enee, is due to the.fact that a fence would interfere with plan. e ita~e-offs
landings. If Coyote Bush were used around the entire perimeter rather than the
proposed fence, it would likely not prevent people and larger animals from coming
on-site, thereby making it less effective than fencing. Coyote Bush would be more
expensive to install and maintain over the long-term due to irrigation needs, and
access paths would be more easily worn through the Coyote Bush. It should be noted
that the adjacent municipal golf course has fencing installed around its perimeter.
Unfortunately, fencing does not prevent access by people, but only deters them. It is
anticipated that the combined fencing and lighting would provide adequate security
on the property. Airport persormel have indicated that there have been problems in the
past with vandalism of airport property. Therefore, the security lighting is not
redundant to the fencing. In the last five years, airport personnel report that there have
CMR: 240:98 Page 2 of 4
been 102 pedestrian and 13 vehicle incursions (people or vehicles on the runway or
taxiway). During that same time period, the West Valley Flying Club (located on the
airport site) reports 17 acts of theft or vandalism. This includes stolen radios, aircraft
broken into, and stolen yokes. For the time period of April 1996 to April 1998, the
Palo Alto Police Department indicates that two vandalisms, two auto burglaries, four
thefts, and 22 aircraft burglaries were reported.
As designed, the proposed lighting covers the minimum area required for security
measures. The parking aisles are approximately 140-210 feet apart, so the 32-foot
poles are needed to cover this area. Each single-fixture pole illuminates an
approximately 15,000-square-foot area. It should be noted that airports typically use
40- to 50-foot poles. If shorter poles are to be used, the area of lighting around each
pole would be decreased, thereby requiring the use of more light poles to cover the
same overall area. Also, shorter poles tend to produce ’hot spots,’ or uneven light
distribution. Ground-mounted lights would not be feasible for airport use as they
represent potential obstructions to movement of the planes and are not designed for
security purposes. A photometric plan has been included in the plan set.
As proposed, the application does not represent an increase in the capacity or use of
the Palo Alto Airport. Runway lighting is not changing. Therefore, no additional
night-time flights would occur over the existing use.
The project was proposed in order to alleviate on-going problems of unauthorized
access to the site by people and animals that create life-threatening situations. A
runway incursion is defined as an unauthorized object (vehicle, person, or animal)
entering onto a runway and interfering with the use of the runway by aircraft. Due to
the absence of adequate perimeter fencing at the Palo Alto Airport, the airport has
experienced runway incursions primarily associated with animals and occasionally
with unauthorized persons. This has occurred to the extent that the FAA found Palo
Alto Airport to have one of the highest incursion rates in the region. The Airport has
also had numerous instances of. vandalism and theft in the past five years. Night
patrols and security personnel haveii~t resolved the problem. Finally, the FAA has
been actively promoting these safety and operational improvements at Palo Alto and
other general aviation fields. As noted in the staff report, "the majority of the
proposed improvements are to meet current FAA safety and operational
requirements."
In accepting this application, staffbelieved that the proposed improvements were not
of a magnitude to warrant processing through the Planning Commission and City
Council. This issue was discussed in an informational staff report (CMR:114:98)
(included as Attachment C) and routed to the City Council. The issues are design
related, which is appropriate for ARB and appealable to the City Council.
CMR: 240:98 Page 3 of 4
8. Noticing for this project was performed as required under the ordinance.
ARB REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
This project was heard at the Architectural Review Board meeting of April 2, 1998. Board
Member Piha commented on the fencing and Board Member Bellomo commented on the
lighting. Questions were asked of the applicant regarding these two issues and were
responded to. Board Member Alfonso had a concern about the potential water quality
impacts of the proposed project. In making his motion for approval, Board Member Alfonso
requested that the airport’s permit with the State Water Resources Control Board be reviewed
by the Director of Planning prior to project approval. Please refer to the Planning Department
Memorandum included as Attachment D.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Architectural Review Board (ARB) staff report of March 19, 1998
Attachment B - Appeal letter, dated April 16, 1998
Attachment C - Informational staff report (CMR: 114:98)
Attachment D -Planning Department Memorandum
Attachment E -Project plans, Initial Study/Negative Declaration, and CEQA Notice of
Determination (Limited Distribution)
PREPARED BY: Deborah Pollart, Contract Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ANNE MOORE
Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
EMII~ HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CC:Appellants (Emily Renzel, Florence LaRiviere)
Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates, 707 Aviation Blvd, Santa Rosa, 95403
Peter Carpenter
City of East Palo Alto, Office of the Mayor, 2200 University Ave, EPA, 94303
Jerry Bennett, Director of Aviation, Santa Clara County Roads and Airport Division,
2500 Cunningham Ave, S J, 95148
Airport Joint Community Relations Committee, c/o Bill Fellman, Real Estate
Palo Alto Airport Association, 3409 Cowper St., PA, 94306
Peninsula Conservation Center, 3921 E. Bayshore Rd., PA, 94303
CMR: 240:98 Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A
8
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Agenda Date: ~March 19, 1998
To:Architectural Review Board
From:Debbie Pollart, Contract Planner Department: Planning and
Community Environment
Subject:1925 Embarcadero Road: File Nos. 98-ARB-16, 98-EIA-3.-Application
by Santa Clara County for Architectural Review Board (ARB) review
and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community
Development to construct safety and operational improvements at the
Palo Alto Airport.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board consider the County-adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration (see discussion under Environmental Review section of this report) and approve the
project based on the findings in Attachment #B and subject to the conditions in Attachment #C.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant (Santa Clara County)is proposingsafety and operational improvements to the Palo
Alto Airport, including a runway and taxiway overlay~ safety area improvements (new lighting and
striping), drainage improvements, gate installation and perimeter security fencing, apron
rehabilitation and apron security lighting.
The existing airplane parking areas (aprons) will be lighted to deter vandalism and increase safety.
The lighting will be placed on 42 poles, each 32 feet in height. Each pol.e will contain single or
double 400 watt high-press_ure sodium light fixtures. The majority of the proposed improvements
are to meet current FAA safe~y and operational requirements. Runway directional lights and striping
will also be improved. Approximately 5,707 linear feet of 6-foot, black vinyl-coated chain link
a:\1925airport.sr Page 1
security fence will parallel the runway and enclose the airport property along Embarcadero Road and
at the existing terminal building.
At both ends of Runway 12/30, a safety area measuring 120 feet wide by 240 feet long will be
created. Safety areas are required by current FAA design criteria for the purpose of reducing the risk
of damage to airplanes in the event of an "undershoot" or "overshoot" during landing. The safety
areas are used only during an emergency to provide an additional measure of aircraft safety. The -
proposed safety areas will be graded and paved to create an "all-weather" surface. The actual take-off
and landing area for planes will be reduced by approximately 60 feet from the current end of the
runway.
On September 9, 1997 the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, as Lead Agency, approved the
proposed project and adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental
Impact Assessment). The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and CEQA Notice of
Determination are included as Attachment #D.
TABLE 1:
SITE INFONMATION
Applicant:Santa Clara County, Roads & Airport Dept.
Owner:---City of Palo Alto
Assessor’ s Parcel Number:008-006-001
Lot Area:100 acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation:Major Institution/Special Facility
Zoning District:PF-Public Faeilities~ with~aSite and Design
combining district [PF(D)]
Surrounding Land Uses:North: San Francisco Bay and wetlands
South: RWQCP, Byxbee Park and Offices
West: Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
East: Baylands Nature Preserve
a:\1925airpon.sr
BACKGROUND
The Palo Alto Airport is one oftl’h-ee general aviation airports in Santa Clara County, the other two
being Reid-Hillview in San Joseand South County near Morgan Hill. Palo Alto Airport is located
on 100 acres of land at the northwesterly end of Embarcadero Road. The site is owned by the City
of Palo Alto and is leased to Santa Clara County, Roads and Airports Department. The Airport has
a single runway, 2,500 feet in length and 65 feet in width. It also has an adjacent taxiway, 30 feet
in width, which parallels the runway.
The Airport contains 13 major buildings, including a temporary terminal, two FBO (Fixed Base
Operators) structures, and six hangers.. Navigational aids and lighting include runway and taxiway
lights, obstruction lighting, a rotating beacon, and visual approach slope indicators (VASI). Aircraft
operations at Palo Alto Airport are managed by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic
controllers in an onsite control tower.
On January 20, 1998, The City Council was advised of .the proposed safety and operational
improvements of the project in CMR:114:98 and the intent of the Director of Planning and
Community Development to forward to ARB as a minor site and design project due to the limited
environmental impacts and the nature of the safety improvements and considered as a major ARB
with appropriate public notice.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The proposed project will not affect current airport operations nor directly result in an increase in
activities. The project has been designed to keep paths and walkways open, to erdaanee the onsite
wetland habitat through 2:1 replacement plantings, and to provide additional safety to the local
animal population and pedestrians through the installation of security fencing. Significant issues are
discussed below.
Due to the requirements of the FAA for non-interference with airport operations, the new lighting
will be directed downwards and will not spill offthe site. The minimization of any "spillover" effect
will also reduce any potentially significant impacts to wildlife in the adjacent nature preserve to a
less-than-signific .ant .level.
The increase in .lighting on-site will contribute to nighttime ’glow’ in the area. However, this impact
is anticipated to be less-than-significant due to the FAA requirements for non-interference with
airport operations. With no "spillover" from the project site, the urban/rural lighting boundary will
not change.
Fencing:
a:\1925ai~port.sr Page 3
The fence, as proposed, will not cut off access to the levees and paths in the area. At the north end
of Runway 12/30, no fencing will be used because the.height of the-fencing on top of the existing
levee would create a hazard to aviation. Instead, at this location, thick Coyote Brush will be planted
to form a barrier between the airfield and the adjacent areas. Since the plants grow to only 1.5 to 2
feet in height, they will not pose a hazard to aircraft operations. In addition, the fencing has been
designed with small cut-outs at the base, in order to allow small animals to migrate through the site.
Fencing of the site is a beneficial aspect of the project as it will deter vandalism and prevent
humans/animals from tra~¢ersing unsafe areas.
Water/Flooding:
The addition of the safety areas will result in a slight increase in the mount of impervious surfaces
at the Airport which, in turn, will increase stormwater runoff. However, due to. the relatively small
size of the areas to be paved (approximately 1.3 acres), this increase in the volume of stormwater
runoff would not be significant.
Because the existing drainage system is partially clogged and has deteriorated, the runway
experiences flooding during heavy rainstorms. The project proposes to replace those portions of the
existing storm drainage system on the~..airfiel~l which are plugged and/or corroded. Swales in the
infield will be regraded so that stormwater flOWS to the catch basins.
Bike Path:
The City’s Bicycle Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan and Baylands Master Plan have all recognized
and required the completion of the Embarcadero Road bike path adjacent to the golf course and
airport. It has been anticipated that these improvements would be done as the airport o~ golf course
¯ proposed other improvements. Adjacent to the airport, a 10-foot wide asphalt, path with 2 foot
¯ shoulder is required and is included in the conditions, of approval. Staffis not requiting landscaping
at this time since a future project, relocation and construction of a new terminal building, will also
impact the area. Significant landscaping will be required at that time.
Biology:
The Initial Study indicates that the following biological impac.ts were found to be less-than-
significant: loss of developed habitat from project development; loss of non-native/saline grassland
habitat from project development; loss of habitat for various special-status plant and animal species;
and disturbance to jurisdictional areas due to drainage pipe installation.
The proposed project will result in the loss of approximately 0.98 acres of diked seasonal marsh
habitat which is under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. This loss
represents approximately 12% of the total diked salt marsh habitat onsite. This impact is associated
with the regrading (fill operations) of the eastern edge of the runway. Sheets 3-5 of the project plans
(cross sections A3 and B3) show the areas of fill that are proposed as part of the runway overlay
improvements.
a:\1925airport.st Page 4 ..
The impacted wetlands are of poor habitat due to the fragmentation of vegetation and sparse
coverage ofpictdeweed. Although not of high quality, the wetlands and seasonal ponds are regulated
and any disturbance to them is regarded as a significant impact. The applicant has included a
mitigation measure for replacement onsite of all seasonal wetlands lost (at a 2:1 ratio), which would
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level (included in attached conditions of approval). The
areas of replacement are shown on Sheet 13 of the project plans.
In addition, the project will require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in accordance
with Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act for any project-related work affecting wetlands. In
turn, all Section 404 permits require a water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB). Application for the Section 404 permit is currently being processed.~
No Burrowing Owls were observed in or near the project impact areas during the February 1997 site
visit. Burrowing Owls could, however, move onsite prior.to project construction. Any displacement
of resident Burrowing Owls would be considered a significant impact. The applicant has included
mitigation measures (included in attached conditions of approval) which would reduce project-
related impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Soils:
A geotechnical engineering investigation report was prepared for the proposed project in July, i 994.~
The report found that the project site contains sporadic fill materials and soft clay (Bay Mud).
Groundwater was encountered at 2’8" to 5’ below the existing ground surface in the borings. These
conditions could create problems with regard to the structural integrity and stability of the proposed.
improvements. As recommended by the geotechnieal investigation, mitigation measures have been
included in the project to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. These are included
in the attached conditions of approval.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and
Architectural Review Board Ordinance.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of this ARB review and recommendation was.provided by publication of the agenda in a local
newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility customers within 300 feet
of the project site were mailed a notice card.
’ "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report for Proposed Pavement Reconstruction and
Rehabilitation at Palo Alto Airport", Padlda Consultants, July 1994.
a:\1925airport.sr Page 5
Date project received: January 30, 1998
Date project d~emed complete: January 30, 1998
Action time limit (105 days aider deemed complete): May 15, 1998
Optional extension.at applicant’s request (90 days): August 13, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project does not increase the airport’s operational capabilities; therefore, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review or action was not required. This project is subject to
environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
An Environmental Impact Assessment (please refer to Attaehrnent #D) was prepared for the project
by the Lead Agency, Santa Clara County. In approving the project, the Lead Agency determined that
the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment provided that certain
mitigation measures Were included in the project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
was made available for public review from April 8 to May 7, 1997. A Notice of Determination was
filed on September 9, 1997.
As a Responsible Agency, the City is required to consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
.Declaration prepared by the Lead Agency in reaching its own conclusions on whether and how to
approve the proposed project (CEQA Guidel~es, Section 15096). As further required under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15096, the City did submit comments to the Lead Agency on the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration (see comments and responses in Attachment #D).
Inasmuch as the Lead Agency has already completed the environmental documentation (with
required public review period) and approved the project, the City as a Responsible Agency is only
required to file its own Notice of Determination following project approval. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15096(i) indicates that the Responsible Agency should state that it considered the Mitigated
Negative Declaration as prepared by the Lead Agency in making its own determinations on the
PrOposed project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #A: Applicant’s Development Statement (Included in packet)
Attachment #B: ARB Findings
Attachment #C: Conditions of Approval
Attachment #D: Environmental Assessment and Notice of Determination (Included in packet)
Attachment #E: Plans (Architectural Review Board members only)
cc:Jerry Bennett, Director of Aviation for Santa Clara County, Roads & Airport Department,
2500 Cunningham Avenue, San Jose, CA 94148
Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates, 707 Aviation Blvd., Santa Rosa, CA 95J403
Airport Joint Community Relations Committee, e/o Bill Fellman
Palo Alto Airport Association, 3409 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
a:\1925airport.sr ’ "Page 6
Ken Brody, Shutt Moen.Associates, 707 Aviation Blvd’., Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Airport Joint Community Relations Committee, c/o Bill Fellman
Palo Alto Airport Association, 3400 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
PREPARED BY: Debbie Pollart, Contract Planner
MANAGER REVIEW: Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
a:\ 1925airport.sr Page 7
ATTACHMENT#B
ARBFindings
1925 Embarcadero Road
98-ARB-16,98-EIA-3
Standards per Chapters 16,48.010 and 16.48.120 of the PAMC.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance
in that it promotes high visual aesthetic values, including the use of lighting which
doesn’t spill off-site and by enhancing the wetland areas on-site.
The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the land uses are essentially not being changed from
their current uses. Only safety and operational improvements are proposed onsite.
(Standard #al)
o The project design and proposed improvements are compatible with the immediate
environment and the surrounding environment in that the proposed modifications,
speci.fically the proposed rd~httime lighting, would not spillover onto adjacent
properties and there are no sensitive uses (e.g. residential uses) in the immediate or
surrounding vicinity. (Standard #a2)
The proposed safety and Operational improvements are appropriate to the function of
the project in that they will bring the Airport into conformance with FAA regulations.
(Standard #a3)
The site is not located in an area Which has a nnified design or historical character.
However, the project is consistent with the Baylands Master Plan (updated January
1987), which overlays the project site and most 0fthe surrounding land uses. (Standard
#a4)
The proposed Pr0jeet does not affect the existing transitions in scale and character of
the project environment. (Standard #a5)
The project is compatible with existing improvements off-site. Specifically, a new
bike/pedestrian path will be installed along the Embarcadero Road frontage of the
Airport, connecting with proposed paths along the Municipal Golf Course frontage in
order to create a connection to the Baylands Interpretive Center and Byxbee Park.
Additionally, rep_l.a.eement wetland habitat will be placed onsite, which will enhance
this habitat. (Standard #a6)
The proposed safety and operational improvements do not affect the planning and
siting of the project site, nor the internal sense of order. The proposed drainage system
improvements will enhance the local environment. (Standard #a7) "
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
The required replacement planting onsite of wetland habitat will enhance the open
space characteristics of the project site. The layout of the ALrport will remain the same
upon completion of the proposed project. (Standard #aS)
The proposed project will not affect the ancillary functions of the.project site.
(Standard #a9) "
The proposed project will not affect the existing access and circulation of the site. As
indicated in condition of approval #3, the applicant is required to install a
bike/pedestrian path along the Airport’s Embarcadero Road frontage. This will connect
with other proposed/existing paths to provide a continuous link to the Baylands
Interpretive Center and Byxbee Park. (Standard #al 0)
Although slightly less than one acre of low-quality wetland habitat is being removed,
replacement plantings at a 2:1 ratio will assure that this onsite natural feature is
appropriately preserved. (Standard #al 1)
The proposed paving, materials, lighting standards, fencing and wetland habitat
plantings are appropriate for the function and design of the Airport. (Standard #al 2)
The proposed wetland habitat plantings and Coyote Bush plantings create a desirable
and functional environment. (Standard #al 3)
The proposed plant materials, including Coyote Bush and pickleweed are suitable for
the site, both in terms of their ability to thrive and ha enhancing wetland habitat
(pickleweed). (Standard #a14)
The proposed outdoor lighting will be energy efficient and include features to meet
building code requirements .for energy efficiency. (Standard #al 5)
ATTACHMENT #C
Conditions of Approval
,!925 Embarcadero Road
98-ARB-16, 98-EIA-3
prior to Issuance of Grading Permit
Planning
Prior to issuance of grading permits, a pre-construction survey for Burrowing Owls shall be
conducted by a qualified ornithologist. The pre-construetion survey shall be conducted no
more than 30 days prior to the start of site grading for each construction phase. If no owls are
located during these surveys, then no additional action shall be warranted. If breeding or
resident owls are located on or immediately adjacent to the site, however, a construction-free
buffer zone around the active burr6w shall be established as determined by the ornithologist
in consultation with California ~epartment of Fish and Game (CDFG). No construction
activities shall proceed that would disturb breeding owls.
If Burrowing Owls are found, the’applicant shall require the relocation of the non-breeding
owls on the site by a qualified ornithologist. Either passive or active relocation shall be
performed in conformance with site-specific memorandum of understanding approved by
CDFG.
Planning/Transportation Planning
3.Details of the required bike path along the Embarcadero Road frontage, including placement,
width, and materials shall be approved by the Planning Department and Transportation
Department prior to issuance of grading permits.
Utilities-Engineering Electrical
o The City may require replacement of the existing transformer with a larger-size transformer
due to the additional lighting loads proposed. The applicant shall provide load details to the
City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering Electrical Department fordetermination, .
During Construction
Public Works/Geoteehnieal En "ngiag.~
o After stripping of vegetation, slab and pavement subgrades and areas to receive engineered fill
shall be excavated of any and all loose/soft soils. The resulting surface upon which fill is to
be placed shall be observed by a geoteehnical enginner. Areas receiving fill shall be scarified
to a depth of six inches, moisture-conditioned (or dried) and compacted in accordance with
criteria in the geotechnical report, except that the upper six inches of the granular subgrade soil
and the base rock shall be compacted to 95% relative compaction. Clayey soils shall be
compacted between 87-92% of the maximum dry density and about 3-4% above optimum
moisture content.
A geotechnical engineer shall observe all excavated areas during grading and perform moisture
and density tests on all fill materials. Any fill material imported onto the site shall be relatively
granular material and shall be reviewed by the geoteehnical engineer.
Surface runoff from the pavement areas shall be collected and drained to ~suitable discharge
points. Water shall not be allowed to pond immediately adjacent to the pavement areas, and
positive drainage shall be provided.
Plannilig
All seasonal wetlands that will be lost due to implementation of the proposed project shall be
replaced onsite at a ratio of 2:l (replacement:loss). The project site contains two areas east of
the runway that will serve as sites for created seasonal wetlands, as shown on Sheet 12. Site
A is approximately 1.42 acres and Site B is approximately 0.62 acres. The created wetlands
shall be graded to the same elevations as the piekelweed-dominated wetlands. The ground
surface shall be manipulated in such a way as to create micro depressions and knolls.
Pickleweed plugs shall be planted throughout the excavated area.
Prior to Final Inspection
Planning/Transportation Planning
The bike path shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning and Transportation
Divisions prior to final inspection for the proposed project.
ATTACHMENT B
.CITY OF PALO ALTO ,’.. ~ ......
Office of the City ClerkAPPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANN~. NG~. 1"7 F’,~ ~: ~9
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AI~LJCATIONS)
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No.Zone District
Street Address /¢~._K" ~/~-f,~/~/~’~z~-~O ~,,#Z;)~ "~,,~Z_/.,3
Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) ’ L--~’/’7"~ ~: 2~z.~ A~’-F~
Property Owner’s Address
Street City ZIP
The decision of the Director of Planning and (~ommunity Environment dated
19 ~.~whereby the application of ,~z*,~ ~-.~7~1--.d../~ ~’~’~
(original applicant)
for architectural review was
(ap~’r-g~ed/d enied)
, is hereby appealed for the reasons’stated
in the attached letter (in duplicate).
Date ~ /;7, / ~’~ Signature of Appellan ,~---2~..~_.~, "~f~, -~_~~. ~c.-~
.
CITY COUNCIL DECISION:
Date Approved Denied
Remarks and/or Conditionsi
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Plans By:
2.Labels By:
3.Appeal Application Forms ,-""By: ~
4.Letter ,,"By: ~__~~_.__
5.Fee ’/By: L~..<{/-zJ~c~,p-~-
12/89
April 16, 1998
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mayor Rosenbaum and Members of the City Council:
We are appealing the Architectural Review Board’s decision for 1925 Embarcadero
Road - the Palo Alto Airport - for the following reasons:
1. The perimeter security fencing will interfere with the free movement of wildlife,
thereby fragmenting further the baylands habitat.. Small intermittent holes will not
be helpful to animals fleeing from predators, so the holes are not mitigation.
2. T.he almost a mile of perimeter security fencing is far more extensive than is
necessary to protect airplanes from vandalism. In fact, densely planted Coyote Bush
is proposed in lieu of fencing at the north end of the runway. This could be used
throughout the perimeter and be much more compatible with the airport’s baylands
setting.
3. The security lighting is redundant to the fencing and completely unnecessary.
4. The security lighting is most inappropriate in the baylands. Placing 42 poles e~ich
.32 feet high (three stories!!) will create a major change in the natural area. The fact
that the lights are aimed downward to prevent light spillage on the adjacent lands
does not help when the lights are three stories in the air. If lighting is necessary, it
can be ground lighting which would not be visible off site and would be quite
adequate combined with strategically placed fencing. The amount of lighting
proposed will help night predators find birds nesting or roosting nearby.
5. Although the Staff Report says that "The proposed project will not affect current
airport operations nor directly result in an increase in activities". It is pretty
apparent that such massive night lighting could well move the airport toward more
night time flights. A 1984 study of the Palo Alto Airport by the San Francisco Bay
Bird Observatory (SFBBO) clearly demonstrated that airplane activity causes birds to
fly up from their roosts during the day. The birds return to the roosts because they
have become acclimatized to the aircraft. However, if they are caused to fly up at
night, they most certainly will be disoriented and be stressed. Attached is Appendix
N from the 1984 report and it lists species found on the airport site. (The taxiway
was originally proposed bayward of the runway and was ultimately built on the
other side. Thus all of these species could be presumed to still use this site.) The
1984 Study identified at least one burrowing owl nest on the site.
Page Two
6. In the Staff Report provided to the A_RB, there is no specific definition of the
problem to be solved. There is the general statement that the project is "to deter
vandalism and increase safety". There is no discussion of the magnitude of this
problem, nor of other means of solving it.
7. This massive change adjacent to a wildlife preserve should not have been
processed as a minor site and design approval and should have gone through the
Planning Commission and City Council for conformance with the Baylands Master
Plan.
8. Although properties within 300 feet of the airport were noticed of this action ie.
the Golf Course and the City Parks Department and perhaps the Sewage Treatment
Plant, there was no notice to interested environmental groups other than the
standard agenda publication.
For all-of the above reasons, we request that you reverse the ARB decision on this
project and request that the County propose a more environmentally sound project
to solve its security and vandalism problems. If it is not too late to reverse the
Minor Site and Design finding by the Director of Planning,~ we also request that that
action be taken and the project be sent through the normal Site and Design process.
Sincerely,
Emily M. Renzel
Baylands Conservation Committee
Florence M. LaRiviere
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge
Attachment: Appendix G, N, & O The Effects of a Small Aircraft Airport on Birds
in the Palo Alto Baylands by the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory.
CENSUS DATA SUPPLEMENT
(Additional Species Sighted in ~he Study Area During 1983)
Appendix G
Unless otherwise noted these sightings were made by members of the Santa Clara Valley
Audubon Society and were confirmed by Bill Bousman.
Red-Throated .Loon
Arctic Loon
Common Loon
Least Bittern
Little Blue Heron
Snow Goose
Hooded Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
Golden Eagle
Peregrine Falcon
Black Rail
*Sore (Phyllis Browning)
Snowy Plover
Lesser Yellowlegs
Wandering Tattler
Red Knot
Baird’s Sandpiper
Pectoral Sandpiper
Red-necked Phalarope
Red Phalarope
~Jaeger (possibly Parasitic)
+Glaucous Gull
Black-legged Kittiwake
Least Tern
*Short-eared Owl (Glenn Moffat)
*Tree Swallow (Phyllis Browning)
*Bank Swallow (Tim Gates).
Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
Bobolink
* Reported by other persons
Appendix
Birds Species Using Proposed Aircraft and Automobile Parking Lot Sites
Kilideer
Gull Species
Ring-necked Pheasant
Rock Dove
Mourning Dove *
Cliff Swallow
Barn Swallow
Mockingbird
Red-winged Blackbird
Brewer’s Blackbird
House Sparrow
House Finch
Birds Found at Site of the Proposed Taxiway
kmerican Bittern
Snowy Egret
Great Egret
Mallard *
Gadwall *
Northern Shoveler
Cinnamon Teal
American Coot
American Avocet
Black-necked Stilt *
Killdeer *
Long-billed Curlew
Sanderling
Western Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
Ring-billed Gull
Northern Harrier
Ring-necked Pheasant
Anna’s Hummingbird
Cliff Swallow
Barn Swal!ow
Marsh Wren
Mockingbird
Savannah Sparrow
Song Sparrow *
White-crowned Sparrow
Western Meadowlark
Red-winged Blackbird
American Goldfinch
House Finch
* Denotes nesting at this site.
Bird Species Affected by the Proposed Buffer Zone Loss
American Bittern
Great Blue Heron
Great Egret
Snowy Egret
Black~crowned Night-Heron
Mallard
Northern Pintail
Cinnamon Teal
Gadwall
American Wigeon
Scaup species
Ruddy Duck
Black-shouldered Kite
Northern Harrier
Ring-necked Pheasant
Black Rail (Bill Bousman)
Clapper Rail
American Coot
Killdeer
Black-necked Stilt
.%~erican Avocet
:.larbled Godwit
Least Sandp~per
Dowitcher species
Ring-billed Gull
Gull species
Forster’s Tern
Mourning Dove
Anna’s Hummingbird
Black Phoebe
Barn Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Marsh Wren
Common Yellowthroa~ (Dave Jensen)
Fox sparrow
song sparrow
~ite-Crowned Sparrow
Golden-Crowned Sparrow
Red-winged Blackbird
Western Meadowlark
Brewer’s Blackbird
House Finch
Lesser Goldfinch
Goldfinch species
Appendix 0
ATTACHMENT C
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:JANUARY 20, 1998 CMR:114:98 ¯
SUBJECT:INFORMATION REPORT ON PROPOSED SAFETY AND
OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PALO ALTO AIRPORT
BACKGROUND
The County of Santa Clara, Airport Division, is proposing safety and operational
improvements to the Palo Alto Airport. The Airport is located within the City of palo Alto
and is zoned Public Facilities with a Site and Design combining district [PF(D)]. The Site
and Design combining district is applied to environmentally sensitive areas of the City and
requires project review by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
City Council unless deferred under Chapter 18.99 of the Zoning Code by the Director of
Planning and Community Environment to the ARB as a minor change.- A "minor change"
is defined as "an alteration or modification of an existing plan, development, or project
which is substantially inferior in bu .lk, degree, or importance to the overall dimension and
design of the plan, development, or project, with no change proposed for the use of the land
in question, no change proposed in the character of the structure or structures involved, and
no exception or variance required." Unless the Cit~ Council directs otherwise, the Director
of Planning and Commtmity Environment will refer the airport project to the ARB as a minor
project. ..
DISCUSSION
The proposed project includes a runway and taxiway overlay, safety area improvements (new
lighting and striping), drainage improvements, perimeter security fencing and gate
installation, apron rehabilitation and apron security lighting. The Santa Clara County Board
of Supervisors has approved the proposed project and California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Notice of Determination of no significant environmental impacts. The majority of
the proposed improvements are to meet current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
safety and operational requirements.
Pertinent issues that will be considered by the ARB include:
Clv~:114:98 Page 1 of 3
Lighting." The existing airplane par-king areas will be lighted to deter vandalism and increase
safety, The 400-watt, high pressure sodium fixtures will be mounted on 32-foot poles. Due
to the requirements of the FAA for non-interference with ai~-port operations, the new lighting
will be directed downwards and will not spill offthe .site. New airplane directional signs will
be installed along the runway, taxiways and aprons.
Fencing: A 6-foot, black vinyl coated security fence will enclose the airport parallel to the
runway, around the existing terminal building and along Embarcadero Road. The fence will
not cut off access to th~ currently accessible levees and paths in the area. Planting will be
used at the north end of the runway to discourage access to the runway and airport property.
Rumvco,: At the southem end of the runway, approximately 155 feet of paving will be added
as part of a required 240-foot safety zone area that also will serve as an entrance to the
runway. The actual take-off and landing area for planes will be reduced by approximately
60 feet from the current end of the runway. At the runway’s northern end, 240 feet of paved
safety area will be constructed.
.RESOURCE IMPACT :
The project does not affect City res6urceg. Funding for the $1,111,000 project is 90 percent
from the Federal Airport Improvement Program and the remainder from the County’s Palo
Alto Airport Special Fund. The proposed improvements do not affect the City’s lease to the
County to operate the airport..
ENVIRONMENTAL, REVIEW
The proposed project does not increase the .airport’s operation capabilities; therefore,
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviewor action was not required. Under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposal is considered a project. The
County prepared an initial study and recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration that
was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Copies of the initial study and Notice of
Determination are available for review at County Office of the Director of Aviation and at
the office of the Palo Alto Planning Division. Areas addressed included the increase in
impervious surfaces; the affect on public access, wetlands, and wildlife migration; and the
increased light and glare. In addition, the project requires a permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in accordance with Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act.
Application for that permit is currently being processed.
PREPARED BY: Janies E. Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
¯ KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CMR: 114:98 Page 2 of 3
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
cc~City of East Palo Alto, Office of the Mayor, 2200 University Avenue, East Palo Alto,
CA 94303
Jerry Bennett, Director of Aviation for Santa Clara County, Roads and Airport
Division, 2500 Cunnmgham Avenue, San Jose, CA 94148
Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates, 707 Aviation Boulevard, Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Airport Joint Commumty Relations Committee, c/o Bill Fellman, Real Property
Manager, City of Palo Mto
Palo Alto Airport Association, 3409 Cowper Street, Palo Mto, CA 94306.
Peninsula Conservation Center, 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
CMR:114:98 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT D
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To:Architectural Review Board
Project:
From:
Date:
1925 Embarcadero Road - Palo Alt0 Airport
98-ARB-16, 98-EIA-3
Debbie Pollart, contract planner
April 24, 1998
This project was heard at the April 2, 1998 ARB meeting. Boardmember Alfonso had a concern
about water quality issues - specifically about the fact that the storm runoff from the airport is
discharged directly into San Francisco Bay. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the proposed
project did not indicate water quality as a potentially significant impact due to the fact that no
expansion of current operations/facilities were being proposed. In fact, due to the improvements
proposed it was assumed that runoff quality might even improve. Boardmember Alfonso requested
that the airport’s permit with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) be reviewed by
the Planning Official before approving the project. A copy of the Notice of Intent was submitted to
the City following the ARB hearing.
Subsequent telephone conversations with Joe Teresi (Public Works Department) and Phil Bobel
(Regional Water Quality Control Plant) indicate the following:
The State Water Resources Control Board has several types of storm water discharge permits. The
one applicable to the Palo Alto Airport regulates storm water discharge from industrial sites. The
airport must file a Notice of Intent which indicates their commitment to abide by the requirements
of the permit. They are also required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, which
outlines site-specific measures to control pollutants. According to Joe Teresi, the airport has done
all of the above and is in compliance with the State requirements.
In addition to the State Water Resources Control Board, the airport must be in compliance with the
city’s storm water ordinance or face fines. Personnel from the city wastewater treatment plant make
inspections several times per year. There are no outstanding problems at this time.
With regards to the sanitary sewer discharge, the airport has had intermittent wash pad violations
(this is a staging area .where the planes are washed) over the past few years. As a result of this, they
are about to install a small treatment facility on-site. According to Phil Bobel, when a violation
occurs, the airport is notified in writing and given a time frame to come into compliance, after Which
a fine is given if the problem goes unresolved. According to Phil, the airport has been cooperative
in addressing and fixi.ng violations.
In conclusion, the airport is ~n conformance with all applicable storm drain/sanitary sewer ordinances
and permits. The proposed project does not represent an expansion of facilities or use of the airport.
Therefore, no potentially significant water quality impacts are anticipated.
Co:Joe Teresi, Public Works Department
Phil Bobel, Regional Water Quality Control Plant