HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-23 City Council (16)TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
11
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMI.VNITY ENVIRONMENT
NOVEMBER 23, 1998 CMR:447:98
1925 .EMBARCADERO 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
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report returns to Council an appeal of the decision of the Interim Director of Planning
and Community Environment, based on the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
recommendation, to approve safety and operational improvements to the Palo Alto Airport.
The project is proposed by the leaseholder, Santa Clara County Roads and Airport
Department. The project includes several safety and operational improvements; however, the
appeal primarily took issue with the proposed perimeter fencing and the apron security
lighting.
The Council held a public hearing on June 29, 1998 and continued the proposed project to
allow time for the applicant and appellants to meet and discuss the project. This meeting
took place on July 22, 1999. The applicant maintained the need for the perimeter fencing and
the apron security lighting as proposed, noting that theproject had already been reduced in
scope. The appellants questioned the need and the impact the perimeter security fence and
the apron security lighting would have on the wildlife in the area. The applicant determined
to resubmit the project as previously proposed.
Staff further evaluated the project and is recommended minor modifications to the project
as approved by the Interim Director. These include reducing the fence height from six feet
to five feet, requiring a minimum of four inches clearance along the bottom of the fence, and
elimination of six light poles that most directly affect the habitat areas. The applicant and
appellant remain committed to their stated positions and have not expressed support for the
proposed staffmodifications.
Clv~447:98 Page 1 of 5
RECOMMENDATION..,,
Staffrecommends 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 added conditions:
The perimeter fence shall be a maxirnnm of five feet in height with a minimum four-
inch clearance along the bottom, and
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
luminaires in the areas closest to the duck pond and Baylands areas.
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Santa Clara County Roads and Airport Department as leaseholder of the
Airport, is proposing safety and operational improvements to the Palo Alto Municipal
Airport consistent with Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) Advisories. The improvements
include runway and taxiway overlay, safety area directional lighting and striping, drainage
improvements, perimeter security fencing, apron rehabilitation and apron security lighting.
See Attachment A, CMR:240:98 with attachments, for a complete description.
On April 2, 1998, this project was heard before the ARB and recommended for approval with
findings and conditions. The Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment
approved the project on April 7, 1998. An appeal was filed on April 17 by Emily Renzel
(Baylands Conservation Committee) and Florence La Riviere (Citizens Committee to
Complete the Refuge).
The appeal was heard by the City Council on June 29, 1998. See Attachment B for the City
Council minutes. The Council continued the proposal and directed that the applicant,
appellants and staffmeet to discuss specific issues of the appeal. This meeting took place
on July 22, 1998. Attendees were:
Deborah Barrens, City of Palo Alto Naturalist
Jerome Bennett, County Airport Manager
Herb Borock
Patrick Boursier, H.T. Harvey and Associates
Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates
Peter Carpenter, Joint Airport Community Relations Committee
Lynn Chiapella
Bill Fellman, City of Palo Alto Real Estate
Jim Gilliland, City of Palo Alto Planning
John Hessler, David Powers & Associates
Florence La Riviere, appellant
CMR:447:98 Page 2 of 5
Debbie Pollart, City of Palo Alto Contract Planner
Emily Renzel, appellant "
Heidi Utterback, Shutt Moen Associates
The two major topics of discussion were the location and height of the perimeter security
fencing and the proposed apron security lighting. There was no consensus between the
applicant and the appellants on these two issues. The applicant stated the need for the
fencing in the location as proposed and the need for the lighting as proposed, and indicated
that the proposed lighting was the minimum required to provide essential security. The
appellants discussed the fence location and the possibility of lowering the height from six
feet to five feet to reduce the visual impacts. The appellants strongly favored elimination of
the lighting on the basis of the lighting being inconsistent with the Baylands area, detrimental
tO wildlife habitats and encouraging of increased nighttime airport operations.
By letter dated October 14, 1998 from Jerome T. Bennet (Attachment C), the applicant
requested that the proposal be resubmitted to the Palo Alto City Council as previously
proposed. This letter provides additional information and justification for the fencing and
lighting.
DISCUSSION
The meeting between the applicant and the appellants provided a forum for increased
knowledge of the concerns and issues for both sides. It did not, however, result in any
significant changes in the proposed project. There is general agreement that the runway and
taxiway overlay,, the safety area directional lighting and sla’iping, and the drainage
improvements are acceptable. The outstanding issues are the perimeter security fencing and
the apron security lighting. In particular, the applicant is maintaining that the proposed apron
security lighting is the minimum acceptable and has already been reduced from an original
proposal for 70 light poles, 50 feet in height. The appellants believe that the lights should
be eliminated and the fence redesigned to have less visual impact and impact on small
wildlife. Neither the applicant nor appellants has indicated support for the staff
recommendation.
Perimeter Securi _ty Fencing: Staff is recommending that the fence be approved in the
location as shown on the original plans. Staff is satisfied that the chosen location will
minimize the impacts of the fence on wildlife and visual aesthetics. However, staff is
recommending two additional modifications to further reduce any impacts. By lowering the
height of the fence from six feet to five feet, the overall visual impacts of the fence can be
further reduced without a significant reduction in security. At the request of the City
Naturalist, staffis recommending that the clearance at the bottom of the fence be increased
from the proposed three inches to a minimum of four .inches. This increase will provide
additional clearance for small animals, such as the jack rabbit, to more readily be able to
escape under the fence.
CMR:447:98 Page 3 of 5
Apror) Securi_ty Lighting: The lighting reviewed in the environmental documentation
included 70 light poles at 50 feet in height. During the County review process, this was
reduced to the current proposal of 42 light poles of 32 feet in height spread over an area
slightly larger than 20 acres. The 400 watt high pressure sodium luminaires would be on
poles spaced approximately 140 feet apart in one direction and 200 feet apart in the other
direction. All luminaires would be cut offto prevent light spill offthe site and to reduce the
amount of light directed upward. The lighting was designed to a standard of .5 to 2
footcandles as recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Standards (IES).
Staff consulted with the City Naturalist, who stated that "the proposed additional lighting...
could prove to be detrimental to both migrating and resident birds at the Baylands Nature
preserve...and recommend that this issue be addressed more thoroughly." City Planning staff
then contacted the environmental consultant, John Hessler of David Powers and Associates,
and the electrical consultant, Larry Myers of Myers Engineering Group. John Hessler
provided a letter dated November 16 (Attachment D), stating that in the professional opinion
of David J. Powers and Associates and H. T. Harvey & Associates, "the security fighting, as
currently proposed by the Airport, would not adversely affect the nearby. Baylands."
To further reduce the possible impacts of the lights, staff is recommending that the apron
security lighting be approved with a required reduction of at least six light poles and
luminaires along the row of lights on the northern side of the proposed lighting plan.
Attachment E is a photometric drawing of the lights as proposed by the County. Staff has
annotated this drawing with an "x" on the lights that staff suggests be deleted. Staffbelieves
that the airport.management and users have shown a need for the fighting in order to increase
security and reduce vandalism. Removal of the six additional lights will reduce light near
the habitat areas.
ALTERNATIVES TO-STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed apron area lighting could be approved as proposed by the applicant or
eliminated in its entirety. Under the latter condition, the applicant will find it necessary to
increase security efforts through other means such as additional security patrols.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: CMR 240:98 dated May 18, 1998 with attachments including March 19,
1998 ARBstaffreport and April 17, 1998 Appeal and letter
Attachment B: City Council Minutes of June 29, 1998
Attachment C: Letter from Jerome Bennett dated October 14, 1998 ’
Attachment D: Letter from John Hessler dated November 16, 1998
Attachment E: Photometric drawing of lights as originally proposed annotated by staff to
show suggested lights to be eliminated
CMR:447:98 Page 4 of 5
PREPARED BY: James E. Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G. EDWARD G~WF k)
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY~SON
Assistant City Manager
Mayor, City of East Palo Alto
Jerome Bennett, County Airport Manager
Herb Borock
Patrick Boursier, H:T. Harvey and Associates
Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates
Peter Carpenter, Joint Airport Community Relations Committee
Lynn Chiapella
John Hessler, David Powers & Associates
Florence La Riviere, appellant
Emily Renzel, appellant
Heidi Utterback, Shutt Moen Associates
Palo Alto Airport Association, 3409 Cowper St, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Peninsula Conservation Center, 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
CMR:447:98 Page 5 of 5
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
Attachment A
June 29, 1998
TO:
SUBJECT:
City Council Members
1925 Embarcadero Road: Appeal of the Decision of theInterim Director of
Planning and Community Environment to Uphold the Architectural Review
Board Recommendation For Safety And Operational Improvements to the Palo
Alto Airport
This item was continued from the June 18, 1998 agenda due to a lack of attached verbatim
minutes from the April 2, 1998 ARB meeting. The staff‘report, with no changes, is attached,
as well as the verbatim minutes and correspondence received since the staff report was
prepared.
Plans and copies of the environmental documentation are not attached, since they were
distributed with the original report to Council. Copies may be reviewed at the Planning
Division counter, 5th floor of City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto (phone 650-329-
2404).
Respectfully submitted,
ANNE CRONIN MOORE
Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
EI~ILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
Attachments:A.CMR:240:98, dated 5/18/98
B.4/2/98 ARB minutes (verbatim excerpt)
C.Correspondence
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.,
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Jerry Bennett, Director of Aviation, Santa Clara County Roads and Airport Division,
2500 Cunningham Ave., San Jose, CA 95148
Airport Joint Community Relations Committee, c/o Bill Fellman, Real Estate
Palo Alto Airport Association, 3409 Cowper St., Palo Alto, CA 94306
Peninsula Conservation Center, 3921 E. Bayshore Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94303
Julia Bott, Chapter Director, Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club, 3921 East Bayshore
Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto, CA 94302
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
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
Staff recommends the Council uphold the decision of the Interim Director of Planning and
Community Enviroment for approval ofthe Palo Alto Airport application (98-ARB-16, 98-
EIA-3), as approved by the Architectural Review Bbard at its April 2, 1998 meeting.
DISCUSSION
Pro_leer Deseription
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 existing airplane parking areas (a~ons) 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 majorit~ 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 fenee 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"
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 ~ed 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 ~41dlife. 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 nmway 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 fence, is due to the fact that a fence would interfere with plane rake-offs and
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.
o 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 personnel 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 reportthat 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 requiting 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 FA.A 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 have not 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 StudyfNegative. Declaration, and CEQA Notice of
Determination (Limited Distribution)
PREPARED BY: Deborah Pollart,- Contract Planner
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ANNE MOORE
Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
EMI~-~ 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, SJ, 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:
To:
From:
Subject:
March 19, 1998
Architectural Review Board
Debbie Pollart, Contract Planner Department: Planning and
Community Environment
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
Staffrecommends the Architectural Review Board comider 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 DES~TION
The applicant (Santa Clara County) is proposing safety 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 pole will contain single or
double 400 watt high-pressure sodium light fixtures. The majority of the proposed improvements
are to meet currem 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
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 airem_~ safety. The
proposed safety areas will be graded and paved to create an "all-weather" surface. The actual take-off
and landing area for planeswill 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 INFORMATION
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 Facilities~ with a Site 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:\1925airport.sr Page 2
BACKGROUND.
The Palo Alto Airport is one of~i~rce general aviation airports in Santo Clara County, the other two
being Reid-Hillview in San Jos~ and 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 Aim 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 Waffle
controllers in an omite 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 walk-ways open, to enhance 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 off.the 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/nnal fighting boundary will
not change.
Fencing:
a:\1925airport.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 Rtmway 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 airem~ 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 traversing unsafe areas. "
WaterfF!ooding:
The additionofthe safety areas will result in a slight increase in the amount 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/oreorroded. Swales in the
infield will be regraded so that stormw~ter flbws 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 or 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. Staff is not requiring 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.
Biolo~,v:
The Initial Study indicates that the following biological impae.ts were found to be less-than-
sigrtiiieant: 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 ar~ of poor habitat due-to the fragmentation of vegetation and sparse
coverage ofpicklewee& 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 Burro_wing Owls would be considered a significant impact. The applicant has included
mitigation measures (included in attached conditions of approval) which would reduce project-
related impactsto a less-than-significant level.
Soils:
A geotechnieal engineering investigation report was prepared for the proposed project in July, i994.1
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 structmal integrity and stability of the proposed
improvements. As recommended by the geoteehnical investigation, mitigation measures have been
included in the project to reduce these impactsto 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 loc~
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", Pafikh Consultants, July 1994.
a:\1925airport.sr Page 5
Date project received: January 30, 1998
Date project ddemed complete: January 30, 1998
Action time limit (105 days after deemed complete): May 15, 1998
Optional extension at applicant’s request(90 days): August 13, 1998
gNVlRONMENTAL 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 reviewunder the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
An Environmental Impact Assessment (please refer to Attachment #D) was prep .ared 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 r~aehing its own conclusions on whether and how to
approve the proposed project (CEQA Guide " .lines, 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 150960) indicates that the Responsible Agency should state that iteonsidered 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 95J¢03
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, 3409 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
PREPARED BY: Debbie Pollar~ Contract Planner
MANAGER REVIEW: Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
a:\1925airport.sr ~Page 7
ARB Findings
1925 Embarcadero Road
98-ARB-16, 98-EIA-3
¯ ARB 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 surrotm.ding environment in that the proposed modifications,
specifically the proposed n~ghttime 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 unified design or historical character.
However, the project is consigtent with the Baylands Master Plan (updated January
1987), which overlays the project site and most of the surrounding land uses. (Standard
#a4)
The proposed project 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 ousite, 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 replaeemem planting onsite of wetland habitat will enhance the open
space characteristics of the project site. The layout of the Airport will remain the same
upon completiOn of the proposed project. (Standard #a8)
The proposed project will not affect the ancillary funcdons 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 #al0)
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 featta, e is
appropriately preserved. (Standard #al 1) .
The proposed paving.materials, fighting standards, fencing and wetland habitat
plantings are appropriate for the function and design of the Airport. (Standard #a12)
The proposed wetland habitat plantings and Coyote Bush plantings create a desirable
and functional environmem. (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 ~n enhmeing wetland habitat
(piekleweed). (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
1925 Embarcadero Road
98-ARB- 16, 98-EIA-3
Prior to Issuance of Gradin~ Permit
Planning
Prior to issuance of grading permits, a pre-construction survey for Burrowing Owls shall be
conducted by a qualified ornithologist. The pie-construction survey shell be conducted no
more than 30 days prior to the start of site grading for each construction phase. If no owls are
locmed 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 burrow 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 distiarb breeding owls.
If Burrowing Owlsare found, the’applicant shall require the relocation of the non-breedin~
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
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 for.determination.
During Construction
public Works/Ge0Iechnical En~neer
5.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 ageoteehnieal 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 geotectmieal report, except that the upper six inches of the gran .ular 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.
o A geotechnical engineer shall observe all excavated areas dm’ing grading and perform moistt~
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 topond immediately adjacent to the pavement areas, and
positive drainage shall be provided.
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.
Piekleweed plugs shall be planted throughout the excavated area.
Prior to Final Insnection
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 PLANNIING~ 1 "] F;~ 1: ~
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AP~Lic~ATIONS)
To be filed in duplicate
Street City ZiP
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No. Zone District
street Address /~_-<" ,~/~’,~,e~’~Z,~>~"~ ;P~ ~,~-# ,4-~--~/dd
Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) ~--~/-)"~ ,~- ,~z.~
Property Owner’s Address o~,~’~,) Y’/~/-d/A~AJ ~’~.. ,/t~!.~ ~=~._~ L~y~
Street City ZIP
The decision of the Director of Planning and (~ommunity Environment dated
(original applicant)
for architectural review was
(ap/~r-q~ed/denied)
, is hereby appealed for the reasons’stated
in the attached letter (in duplicate).
Date ~ /7, / ~ Signature of Appellan~.~/ ,
CITY COUNCIL DECISION:
Date Approved Denied
Remarks and/or Conditions:
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Plans By:
2.Labels By:
-3.Appeal Application Forms ~/"By:
4.Letter ,,"By:
5.Fee ’/By:
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 ~fi].l not
be helpful to animals fleeing from predators, so the holes are not mitigation.
2. The 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 fendng and completely unnecessary.
4. The security lighting is most inappropriate in the baylands. Placing 42 poles e~ich
32 feet high (three stories!!) wilt. 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 ARB, 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 prob!ems~ 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 Bayiands by the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory.
CENSUS DATA SUPPLEMENT
(Additional Species Sighted in the 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
*Sofa (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 Mo£fat)
*Tree Swallow (Phyllis Browning)
*Bank Swallow (Tim Gates)
Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
Bobolink
* Reported by other persons
Appendix N
Birds Species Using Proposed Aircraft and Automobile Parking Lot Sites
Killdeer
Gull Species
Ring-necked Pheasant
Rock Dove
American Bittern
Snowy Egret
Great Egret
Mallard *
Gadwall *
Northern Shoveler
Cinnamon Teal
American Coot
American Avocet
Black-necked Stilt *
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
Killdeer *
Long-billed Curlew
Sanderling
Western Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
Ring-billed Gull
Northern Harrier
Ring-necked Pheasant
Anna’s Hummingbird
Cliff Swallow
Barn Sw~llow
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 E~ret
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
~.~arbled Godwi:
Least Sandpiper
Dowitcher species
Ring-billed Gull
Gull species
Forster’s Tern
MourninE Dove
Anna’s HumminEbird
Black Phoebe
Barn Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Marsh Wren
Common Yellowthroat (Dave Jensen)
Fox Sparrow
Song Sparrow
White-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, .Architectm~ 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 bulk, 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 City Council directs otherwise, the Director
of Planning and Community 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 sigriificant 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:
CMR:114:98 Page 1 of 3
Lighting: The existing airplane parking 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~. ort operations, the new lighting
will be directed downwards and will not spill off the .site. New airplane directional Signs will
be installed along the runway, taxiways and aprons.
Fencing: A &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.
Ruml,~.: At the southern 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 res6urces. 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 PolicyAct (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: James E. Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
K. NNETH R. SCHREmER
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CMR:114:98
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
E~ HARRE;6~
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 Cunningham Avenue, San Jose, CA 94148
Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates, 707 Aviation Boulevard, Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Airport Joint Community Relations Committee, c/o Bill Fellman, Real Property
Manager, City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto Airport Association, 3409 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, 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;
Project:
From:
Date:
Architectural Review Board
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 th.e 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 dmirdsanitary sewer ordinances
and p~rmits. The proposed project does not represent an expansion of facilities or use of the airport.
Therefore, no potentially significant water quality impacts are anticipated.
Cc;Joe Teresi, Public Works Department
Phil Bobel, Regional Water Quality Control Plant
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING
April 2, 1998
Excerpt
Attachment B
1925 Embarcadero Road: 98-ARB-16, 98-EIA-3. Application by Santa Clara
County for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director
of Planning and Community Development to construct safety and operational
improvements at the Palo Alto Airport. Environmental Assessment: The county, as
the lead agency, has prepared and adopted a mitigated negative declaration.
Chair Piha: I will now open the public hearing.
Debbie Pollart: I am the contract planner on this project. Staffhas recommended
approval. You also need to approve the negative declaration and to direct us to prepare a
Notice of Determination on that.
Mr. Bellomo: This is a mitigated negative declaration?
MS..Pollart: Yes, the county was the lead agency on this, and they prepared it. It has
been adopted and approved by them. CEQA requires, however, since it has been i
considered with this project, as well, that we file a separate Notice of Determination.
Chair Piha: Are there any questions by the board? (None) You may make your
presentation.
Jerry Bennett. Director of Aviation for Santa ClaraCounty: I would like to introduce the-
representatives present this morning. This is Larry Feldman, Airport Operations
Supervisor for the Palo Alto Airport, and our consulting firm of Shutt Moen Associates is
represented by Ken Brody and by Heidi Utterback.
~. Brody: Shutt Moen Associates is an airport planning and engineering firm that has
specialized in a lot of work with airports around the state. My personal capacity on this
project is that I am a senior planner with the firm, and I have been involved with the
coordination of the environmental and biological consultants, as well as with city staff.
Heidi is the project engineer. Iwill let her get involved in more of the details of the
project.
For the environmental work, there was an initial study done by David Powers and
Associates. As mentioned, a negative declaration was approved by the county last
September. That included responses to comments that were submitted by city staff. The
biological work has been done by H. T. Harvey and Associates. There is a requirement
1925 Embarcadero.min Page 1
for Section 404 compliance, and an application has been submitted to the Corps of
Engineers. That is currently in process, as the permit has not yet been issued on that.
Funding for this project is 90% from the FAA and 10% from the county’s Airport
Enterprise Fund. The project has been in the works for quite some time now, and is
finally moving ahead after various things had caused it to take extra time. The
improvements are really maintenance- and safety-oriented. There is no change in the
character or volume of airport usage that would result from this project. Also, in the
design, we have made a major effort to avoid any environmental impacts on the wetlands
that are near the airport. That has been a chief concern. With that quick overview, I will
turn this over to Heidi to walk you through some of the key components. We have made
this summary map that is posted on the wall.
Heidi: As Ken mentioned, this is basically a safety and maintenance project. We are
overlaying this runway and the taxiway. At either end we are regrading and paving a
runway safety area to meet FAA criteria. Also along the shoulders of the runway, we are
going to regrade those, as they do not currently meet FAA criteria. We will also be
grading in_fill areas and replacing some of the storm drains that are very old and have
deteriorated. We will be improving that drainage.
In the apron area, we will be doing seal-coat and providing security lighting throughout.
There is no lighting there now, which is another safety issue. At the perimeter of the
airport, we are putting in fencing. We cannot put it across the ends. On either end, we
are going to stop the fence and provide coyote brush planting to prevent animals or
pedestrians from walking along there. Fencing along there would encroach upon the
runway. The brush grows about a foot-and-a-half to two feet high and is a low coveting
brush. That seemed to be adequate for everyone. Because of the shorter grading, there
currently are some wetlands that go right up against the runway. We are doing mitigation
for that, and we are following a 2:1 replacement ratio in these areas. We are also going to
create some new wetlands and do some replanting there.
We are not going to add any additional traffic and are just maintaining what is there and
providing safety measures to meet FAA criteria. The lighting is for security purposes and
is low fugitive lighting that will not disrupt the other areas. It will just be in the apron
area.
Mr. Peters.on: Just how high do those lights protrude?
Heidi: I believe they are on 30-32-foot poles with the low fugitive lights on top.
have two fixtures, some have three, some have four.
Mr. Peterson: And how will they control them? When do they go on and off?.
1925 Embarcadero.min Page 2
DRAFT
Heid_.___Ai: I believe it will just be at night on a solar timer, from what I understand.
Mr. Br0dy: I might add that the airport has had a substantial amount of vandalism and
theft in the last five or six years, so lighting has been a high priority among the users.
Mr. Peters0n: How late is the airport open at night? Is there, someone in the tower all the
time?
Mr. Brody: The tower is operated from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. by county staff. However, most
recently, they have employed security staff from approximately .10 p.m. to 6 a.m., so it is
about a 23-hour staff there.
Mr. Peterson: And what is the fencing material?
Heidi: The fencing material will be black, vinyl coated, chain link fence six feet high.
That is an added security measure to keep out animals and pedestrians.
Mr......Alfons0: In regard to the drainage issue and the way in which the property drains can
you talk a little about that? Are mitigation measures included to mitigate that?
~: Right now, the drainage (inaudible).
Mr....Alfonso: Could you follow the flow from point of source to the bay?
Heidi: The drainage, once it comes through the storm drain, enters a channel along here,
and there is more existing storm drain in this apron. That all comes to a pump station
which I believe is right in through here, and then, it gets pumped out into the bay.
Mr. Alfonso: Does it in any way get polished on its way out to the bay?
Heidi: I am not sure whether the pump station itself has anything like that.
~. Brody: The pump station takes the main storm drainage off Embarcadero to the bay
and does the same thing to airport drainage. It is then released out to the bay without any
treatment.
Mr.....Alfonso:
project, has there been any concern about water quality?
I have a question for staff. In the environmental assessment for this
Heid___.._Ai: I do not believe it was addressed at all.
1925 Embarcadero.min Page 3
DRAFT
Mr. Alfons.~: I have one other question about biological impacts on the project.
talk about what their concerns were?
Can you
Heidi: That was from our environmental consultant. I believe that concerns the
burrowing owl. There was one burrowing owl that may have been out there. We are
going to have someone come on site before construction to evaluate the situation. If there
is evidence of burrowing owls, they will not start construction, and will analyze that
situation. That is a condition that will occur before they break ground. They did not
actually see one out there, but they discovered evidence that there might have been one
out there.
(A short portion lost here due to bad hum on the tape)
LV!r. Alfonso: Is there another process before it goes intothe bay?
!-Ieidi: No, there is not one now. We are just replacing what is there.
Mr. Alfonso: So my question really has to do with what can be done to improve the
current water quality situation.
Larry Feldman. Airport Supervisor: We have a permit from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board which requires us to do a number of things to reduce pollutants entering
the storm drain system. We are currently in compliance with that permit. 0aortion of tape
completely without sound)
Mr. Alfonso:
have an exact answer?
actual environmental report Does anyone
Mr. Feldman: Well, I do not have the exact answer, but would offer one which would
seem to make sense. As I said, for the most part, all of the construction here is just
replacement of existing pavement or the resurfacing of it. The only areas where there
actually is any new pavement are the pink colors on the drawing up there. The way
things are laid out from each of those areas, the drainage would go onto the adjacent
ground, so there would be some sort of (tape goes bad again)
I don’t know, based upon past construction, whether this is
Mr. Brody: As Larry indicated, with the storm water pollution prevention plan in place,
the airport is in compliance with the water quality criteria that are applicable to the
airport. That may not be as much as what could be done, but it is in compliance with .~
what is required.
Mr. Lippert: Could you review the wetland mitigation areas?
1925 Embarcadero.rain Page 4
DRAFT
~: Right now, up against the shoulder at the runway, there are some low areas where
water sits. They have designated some of those areas as wetlands. By regrading the
shoulders, we are disturbing those, and we need to replace them at a ratio of 2:l. They
have provided us with these two areas to create a low area and transplant some
pickleweed and other plants. There is a whole mitigation plan provided by environmental
consultants that describes that.
Mr. Brody: The reason why there are the wetlands along that side of the runway is that
many of these existing drainage channels underneath have become completely plugged
up, so in effect, restoring that flow is the other factor that affects that area.
(Bad-hum for a long portion of tape)
(Member of the audience expresses some concerns about the lights, mostly inaudible)
~. Alfonso: The things that you are doing such as regrading, etc., seem appropriate.
However, the main issue that I have which is not resolved in my mind is the issue of the
drainage. I am not convinced that simply because it has been that way that it necessarily
should continue that way. Whatever methods that can be taken prior to release into the
bay to reduce the amount of pollutants in that water should be taken. It seems to me that
it is possible, based on the many projects we have seen here before that provides slowing
down water flow, etc.
(More comments, mostly inaudible)
This water is ending up at the bay, and there is not much of a distance for it to go from
pollutants to nature. Whatever can be done prior to release into the bay certainly should
be encouraged. The owner that does the work should, definitely promote doing something
there that is definitely better than what is currently there. The whole point of the project
is to improve the quality of the function of those runways. Let’s not forget nature, as
well. The quality of the environment should be looked at equally as much. I don’t think
we should disregard .what additional measures can be taken to control and diminish the
amount of pollutants. I am not sure that that has been properly addressed.
~...Lippert: This project is probably a long time in coming. I do make
use ofthe bay a lot and walk in the park out there often. I support Frank’s comments in
regard to the runoff. My comments are the same. (Most of his comments are inaudible)
I have a minor concern about the fencing (inaudible).
1925 Embarcadero.min Page 5
DRAFT
Heidi: The golf course just adjacent to the airport has the black, vinyl coated fence. It
has been found that the colored fence blends in more than plain chain link fence.
Mr. Peterson: I am impressed with what.you have submitted, I do not have any major
problems with this at all. I simply support it. I have flown out of there a number of
times. The amount of that come out of airplanes is minimal compared to
So I have no problems with it.
Chair piha: Inaudible comments.
Mr. Brody: The pavement shown there in the purple and the blue has substantially
deteriorated. By resurfacing this whole area, it will be an enhancement to the runoff, to
some degree. That is an untechnical comment, but as pavement deteriorates, a whole
variety of other types of substances gets into the runoff. So from that standpoint, in
layman’s terms, I think it will be an enhancement.
Mr. Bennett: I don’t know ifI can alleviate your concerns, but we are currently allowed
to discharge into the storm drain system via a permit that we received from the regional
water quality control board which governs what we can discharge into the drainage
system..That permit was put together in conjunction with the American Association of
Airports. It did that in conjunction with the state, which set out the requirements, and
said, Here are all the things that you need to do in order to get a permit to discharge into
the storm drain system. A program was put together whereby we now meet all of those
conditions. For the last five years, we have had to sample what is being discharged into
the bay. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has those sample results. We have
never been told that anything going into our storm drains has any inappropriate pollutant
levels. The point I am trying to make is that there are some very stringent requirements in
order to get that permit which we have to meet and which we do currently meet. They
require sampling and observations of what is going into these drains on a monthly basis.
My other point, is that nothing that is occurring with this project is changing the storm
drain system.
MOTION: Mr,.....A!fons0: I move that we approve the project with the condition that the
staff have an opportunity to look at these permits, as well as to look at the way in which
that water is filtered prior to entering the storm drains. It seems as though, based on what
I have heard this morning, there are, in my mind, some discrepancies regarding this.
SECOND:By Lippert??.Motion passes unanimously.
1925 Embarcadero.min Page 6
41539~8497 ~.81
SIERRA CLUB ¯ LOMA PRIETA CHAPTER
May 17,1998
Mayor Dick Rosenbaum and Membe~
Palo Alto City Council
Pab AltoCA 94301
RE: Appeal of 98-ARB-16,98-EIA.~ -SUPPORT
RECEIVED
1 8.. 1998
O~Y ICL4~IACiER’S OFFICE.
Dear Mayor Rosenbaum and Members:
On behalf of the Loma Prieta Chapter, with over 900 members in Palo Alto, I am writing to
~tate our strong support for the appeal of 98-ARB-16,98-EIA-3 by Emily ~ and Florence
LaRiviere. While we unde~tand the need for safety improvements, we believe timt such
improvemen~ canbe made in a manner that doe~ ru:rt impact wildlife.
We urgethat the representatives of the City of Palo Alto Planning Department, the airport,
~he Baylands am:l the appellants meet to design a Fmject which addzesse~ both th~ safety
issues and the concerns about wildlife, We suggest this as it seems many questions are still
unanswered and many alternatives have not been g~ven a thorough review. For instance,
c~uld ~e fencing and lighting be placed only around the ~, buildin~ etv.?~ Could the
impacts of th~ light~ be reduced by the use of motion ~? Could fl~e height of the -
poles be reduced if a smaller area, such as the area around the hang~rs and building, was
illuminated? The document~ states that a fence is not enough to deter vandalism and thus
lights are needed. Are lights ermugh or should the ~zvice of a ~ecurity patrol be used?
Could there be a.combination of the use of coyote bush and lhnited fencing in the areas
where short cut paths are being used?.
In our region, fragmentation and lo~ of habitat is cited as the major reason for a decline in
plant and animal species. In addition, the encroachment of ~anan activities have led to the
reduced reproductive success of many species. It is imperative that the City of Palo Alto
make every effort to ensure that both private and public activities not impact wfldlife.~
Working together, I’m suze that a solution which prok,~ wildlif~ and provides better
security can be reached.
3921 "F.~t Bavshorc Road Suitr 204
Pain Aim, CA 94303
415.390-8411
FAX 4L5.390-8497
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
May 17, 1998
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
1925 Embarcadero Road (98-ARB-16, 98.-EIA-3)
Dear City Council:
This project requires Site and Design review by the Planning
Commission and City Council, because it is a major project for
Site and Design review purposes.
The environmental review of this project has the appearance of a
conflict of interest, because the County ef Santa Clara Roads and
Airports Department is both the applicant and the agency that
prepared the environmental assessment.
The entire record of the proceeding before the Architectural
Review Board (ARB), including verbatim minutes of the ARB
meeting, needs to be before you to enable you to function as the
appeal body for this project.
Major Site and Design Review Required
Attachment C to CMR:240:98 is a copy of CMR:I14:98 that was
transmitted to you in your agenda packet for January 20, 1998.
The information report contained in Attachment C includes an out
of context citation from Chapter 18.99 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code (.PAMC) that is,used to justify processing this project as a
minor project for Site and Design review.
Section 18.99.030(a) PAMC states that a minor change to an
existing structure may be processed as a minor Site and Design
review, but this project is for a fence-that~ is a completely new
structur4 and, therefore, requires major Site and Design review.
Project Requires Site and Design Review and Architectural Review
Attachment C also states that the project will be referred to the
ARB as a minor Site and Design review project.
In fact, the project was not referred to the ARB as either a
major or minor Site and Design review project, but only as a
major architectural review project, because the project has not
been assigned a Site and Design application number, although the
Borock / Council / May 17, 1998 / 1925 Embarcadero Page 2
fee deposit collected from the applicant is the fee for a major
Site and Design review.
All projects that are not exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must be processed as major
architectural projects by the ARB pursuant to Chapter 16.48 PAMC.
Normally, when a project requires Site and-Design review a~d
architectural review, it is assigned application numbers for both
types of review and both reviews occur at the same time.
For example, two previous airport projects were (i) 86-ARB-164
and 86-D-13 and (2) 86-ARB-261 and 86-D-24.
When the Director of Planning and Community Environment decides
to process a project as a minor Site and Design review, the
Director has the discretion to approve the Site and Design
application without referring the application to the ARB.
The absence of a Site and Design review application number leads
to the conclusion that the necessary review has.not yet occurred
and that the public retains .its right to appeal a minor Site and
Design review action after the publicly advertised notice of that
decision required by Chapters 18.99 and 18.93 PAMC.
Apparent Conflict of Interest
Palo Alto requires that the preparation of environmental review
documents be under control of the city rather than the applicant.
Seven years ago, the Council amended the PAMC to clarify that the
sponsors of "private" development projects could not prepare
their own environmental review documents, such as Mitigated
Negative Declarations and Environmental Impact Reports.
In context, "private" development projects meant any projects
other than those done by the City of Palo Alto.
This year the County of Santa Clara approved~Supervisor
Simitian’s proposal to prevent private sponsors of development
projects from doing their own environmental review.
Therefore, it is curious that you are being asked to accept an
environmental document that was prepared by the same county
department that is the sponsor of this project.
Also, the Council was notified of this project in January of this
year, when it was too late to participate in the environmental
review that was conducted by the county last year.
Borock / Council / May 17, 1998 / 1925 Embarcadero Page 3
The appropriate time toadvise the Council and the public about a
project in an environmentally sensitive area (that has been given
a Site and Design zoning designation because of its sensitive
nature) was at the time the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative
Declaration was made available for public review over a year ago.
Contrary to the recommendations of the Zucker study, we don’t
need less public review of Site and Design review projects, we
just-need to enforce the existing procedures.
Sincerely,
Herb
Attachment B
Special Meeting
June 29, 1998
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT:Hube~, Fazzino (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Kniss
(arrived at 7:30 p.m.), Mouser, Ojakian, Rosenbaum,
Schneider, Wheeler
ABSENT: Eakins
~PECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY.
l.~esolution of the Council of the Cit~ of Palo Alto~Expressi~
~reciation to Christopher T. Durkin upon His Retirement
Mayor Ro~enbaum presented the Resolution of Appreciation to Chris
Durkin up,his retirement.
City Manager~une Fleming said Chris Durkin had stood before the
Council on seve~l occasions to honor men and women from the Police
Department as th~ retired and moved on to new ventures. Because
h9 c~ould not nor ~uld do so for himself, she wanted to publicly
thank Chris on beha~of the entire City family for his many years
of _service. He h~ been extremely loyal, dedicated, and
professional. When the~ime came to end.his career, he graciously
agreed to stay on until h~ successor was appointed. He continued
to serve the City well, giv~g of himself and taking time away from
h~s_~amily t° h~iP the City~ing the time of transition.
MOTXON:Council Member Wheele~moved, seconded by Schneider, to
ad°pt_the_Re~°lu~" .__ ~ "
~ntitl_ed ~’Resol~ion of the Council of
~~i.o. Alto ExPres~ng Appreciation to-
..... ~h~~h~~ ~. ~in upon ~is Retl~ent"rims
~OTXON [~$~D : _~0 [ k~ azzinQ K i ~ent.F~u.rki _n thanksd the-Cl~ Council for itssupport and trus~ for her leadershi~and wisdom, his
endship, and
vilege and
in law
emories
ida
that
e,
honoring him that evening.
06/29/98 86-404
s~nd the wrong message. He moved to change his vote on the last
it~to eliminate the fourth ~"Whereas." ¯
AM~ND~I~T PASSED 5-3, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, "no," Eakins
absen~ ~Council Mem~r Kniss~ commended Council Member Fazzino for changing
his vote. Th~kCouncil supported the concept. The homeless segment
of the popula~on was a complicated and needy one with many
different aspect~ One particular area was being discussed that
evening. She ment~ned a program in Los Angeles which had exactly
the type of facilit~being proposed. The-program was complicated
and required a lot of~funding. She commended the PIA and noted
that the city of Palo~Ito was the first group to support the
c0ncept by the action tak~that evening" -
Vice Mayor Schneider said th~memorandum requested the Mayor to~
appoint two Council Members as ~aisons to the PIA’s working group.
She wanted to ensure the Council ~s kept informed of where support
was coming from_in the~ next mont~.~ She asked the liaisons to
~epo~t._on a regular basis to the Co~l.
Mr~ the intent ~as to h~e the two-member liaison
~ standing commit~e, it would be subject
~n~ .rules~ If that~as not the Council’ s
~~d be time limited~d given a specific
in thinking
as a drop-
op-in
~~ ~ovi~ed very real_a~d badlY needed services. ~
MO~XON AS ~F~D PASSED 8-0, Eakins absent. .
9.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 bythe Architectural
Review Board recommendation to approve an application for
safety and operational improvements to the Palo Alto Airport
located at 1925 Embarcadero-Road (continued from 5/18/98)
Architectural Review Board Member Francisco Alfonso said the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) felt the primary concern was the
water quality issue in terms of its runoff and how it came into the~
pump station that fed directly from the Embarcadero water runoff
and into the bay.
Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing Open.
06/29/98 86-417
Jerry Bennett, Airport Director, County of Santa Clara, 2500
Cunningham Avenue, San Jose, said the project was a federal grant
project funded by federal money and by the Enterprise Fund of the
airport. The project was to enhance airport safety and maintenance
of the infrastructure.
Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates, 707 Aviation Boulevard, Santa
Rosa, said the project had been in the works for some time, a
mitigated negative declaration had gone through California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processing and was approved by
Santa Clara County (SCC). SCC was in the process of obtaining a
Section 404 permit regarding the wetlands impact. The proposed
improvements were maintenance and safety related and did not
involve any change in the character of the volume of the use of the~
airport. Major efforts were made in ~he design to avoid
environmental impacts to the adjacent wetlands. Referring to a
drawing of the major facilities involved in the project, he~
indicated the ~components of the project included the runway and
taxiway pavement improvement, storm drain replacement, safety areas
modifications, aircraft parking pavement replacement, a perimeter
chainlink fence installation, etc. Because the fence would be too
high at one end of the runway, City staff had proposed using coyote
brush, which was low profile and would serve as a barrier in that
area.
Council Member Ojakian recalled in an earlier application that more
light poles and a shorter pole heighthad been proposed. He
questioned how the current number of poles and 32-foot height were
proposed.
Mr. Brody said no one was familiar with the earlier statement and
he was under the impression the current proposal was correct.
Council Member Ojakian asked what the rationale was for selecting
the number of poles and the pole height and whether there were any
other options.
Heidi Utterback, Shutt Moen Associates, 707 Aviation Boulevard,
Santa Rosa, said the electrical subconsultant designed the project
to adequately light the apron area which included a light
illumination plan and was the basis for determining the number of
poles and pole height.
John Hesler, David Powers & Associates, 1885 The Alameda, San Jose,
said the project had gone through a number of redesigns primarily
to reduce environmental impacts. The staff report (CMR:240:98)
noted other options were available such as taller poles; however,
the taller the pole, the more the side spillover of lighting would
impact wildlife. As the project was being dev~loped, the engineers
were asked to design a concept that would minimize indirect impacts
on the adjacent Baylands area. The tradeoff for the !ower pole
height was that more poles were required.
06/29/98 86-418
Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether all of the recommendations were
Federal Aviation Association (FAA) safety and operational
requirements.
Mr. Bennett said the recommendations met the FAA standards. .The
most important ones were the overrun areas on each end of the
runway, the security fencing, and the pavement improvements. The.
lighting was a strong, recommendation but was more of a
vandalism/security element versus an FAA standard.
Vice Mayor Schneider confirmed that the Palo Alto Golf Course had
the same type of fencing being proposed.
Assistant Planning Official James Gilliland said .the current~
proposal was for black vinyl andhe recalled the fencing at the
golf course to be a regular galvanized chain-link fence.
Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether any complaints had been received
regarding small animals being trapped in the type of fencing.
Mr. Gilliland said he did not recall any recent complaints.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether lighting and its effectiveness
had been examined at a lower level than what the current proposal
recommended, e.g., ground lighting.
Mr. Hesler said no. The basis of the decision~was the engineer’s
judgement as to the minimum height necessary to provide a modest
level of security.
Mr. Brodysaid the issue of the height of the poles was a direct
factor in terms of the circulation of aircraft on the ground~
Ground lighting would not be practical because it interfered with
the movement of aircraft.
Council Member Mossar assumed since lower height poles were not
evaluated, that othermethods of security lighting at night had not
been evaluated.
Mr. Brody said that Council Member Mossar was correct.
Council Member Mossar said the staff report (CMR:240:98) indicated
there would be no spillover and limited impacts from the lighting.
She asked whether there were examples of the lighting in other
locations.
Mr. Brody. said he could not give a location. The issue came up
frequently in environmental docu~nents. All the biologists they
¯ had worked With found the proposed lighting to have minimal
spillover effects.
06/29/98 86-419
Council Member Mossar said the staff report referenced an easement
for the bicycle pathway and a future terminal building to be built.
She asked what the new terminal building was~and when it would be
constructed.
Mr. Bennett said the terminal building would not be built in the
near future but was something the users and the airport would like
to see developed. The question was what would be acceptable to be
deve!oped and how it would be funded.
Council Member Mossar confirmed the project before the Council
simply safety modifications for the airport at its existing
capacity.
Mr. Bennett said that was correct, safety and infrastructure
maintenance.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, referred to a view graph and
pointed out the perimeter fencing on the outer boundaries of the
airport-leasehold area. To minimize the impact of the fencing on
the natural-area, she suggested the fencing go around the area to
be protected and perhaps 50 feet outward of the runway so the major
.open area remained connected to the Baylands open area. There was
.no tea! reason to secure all the open space from the airport’s
perspective as long as people could not get onto the runway itself.
The principal concerns Of the Baylands Conservation Committee and
the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge were the fences
fragmentation of the Baylands habitat by interfering with the free
movement of wildlife and the urban intrusion that the security
lights wo~id introduce directly adjacent to the wildlife preserve~
The nature of the problem to be solved had only been expressed in
generalities, but the solution appeared rather extreme. The
fencing would have much less impact on wildlife and be just as
effective if it were moved closer to the areas to be protected. It
could be run c!oser to the runway and be~screened from the nature
preserve by appropriate planting. In 1978, the Council adopted a
Baylands Master Plan, and those policies were still in effect that
say, bin general, make no changes in the airport activities that
will increase the intensity of airport use or will significantly
intrude into open space." The plan also said, ~Do not construct a
second runway, plant indigenous grasses on the existing pad, and
leave as open space." The concept of open space did not include
fences. None of the businesses operating in the Bay!ands that were
subject to site and design review had security fencing visible from
the nature preserve or the scenic corridor leading to the Baylands.
Some had interior fenced areas, and the airport could do the same
without impacting wildlife. Security lighting would be less
intrusive if the. light poles were lower, preferably ground
lighting. Lighting could also be a movement activating lighting
such as was available for home use. The major urban intrusion into
the Baylands should be ~designed to minimize its impact and to
address only the problem to be solved. There were no statistics to
06/29/98 86,420
indicate how many thefts or incidences of vandalism had occurred at
the airport or whether the presence of a night watchman had impact
in reducing the same. There was no data to indicate whether people
or animals had been a safety hazard by intruding onto the runway.
The problem should be wel! defined before such major intrusions
into a sensitive, natural area were approved. She asked that the
issue be referred to the Planning Commission for site and design
review and conformance with the Baylands Master ~Plan. She asked
that SCC design a more sensitive project.. There ~was perimeter
fencing on the golf course, but the fencing was.adjacent to a levee
that was part of San Francisquito Creek. There ~as no vast marsh
area immediately adjacent where one would expect wildlife to be
moving back and forth. With the current project, there was an area
that had wildlife values that would be separatedby the fencing.!
Efforts along the Embarcadero Road corridor over the. past 25 years
focused on making the entrance to the Baylands scenic to enhance
the public’s experience as they entered the Baylands. Fencing at
the perimeter without proper landscaping and amenities was a big
mistake. Some erosion for the desire to maintain that corridor as
a transition to the natural area had occurred. She urged the
Council to insist on better transitions.
Council Member Mossar understood the concept of allowing movement
for wildlife in the Baylands area. She asked what animals might be
impeded.
Ms. Renzel~ had provided documentation in the original appeal.
Birds used the airport area for low nesting, feeding, and foraging.
At high tide, the next leve! of elevation was where all forms of
wildlife that needed to escape the tide would move. Until the
airport had some plan for using that area in some other way, there
was no real need to fence it and create a barrier.
Council Member Mossar asked what Ms. Renzel’s thought about small
holes or passages at the base of the fence.
Ms. Renzel understood the whole fence was elevated a few inches to
allow the smallest animals to pass under. Some birds would be
unable to fly through the fence, and the balance of nature would be
changed.
Florence LaRiviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, represented the Citizens
Committee to Complete the Refuge Wetlands Preservation Group~ Some
of the specifics that wetlands activists were concerned about had
already been mentioned by staff,, i.e., storm water runoff.
Burrowing owls would become the next regional, state, and federal
endangered species. She referred to a map prepared by the bird
observers from the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory which showed
several areas where the burrowing owls nested. Degradation had
already occurred in areas where the Airport Master Plan had been
implemented such as where burrowing owls were along the levees,
beside the new restoration of marsh. There were many community
06/29/98 86-421
assets and many wildlife experts from groups who would be glad to
sit down with the Planning Commission or with the applicants of the
project to discuss both sides of the issue.
Peter Carpenter, 1 Larch, Atherton, was a city-appointed member of
the Palo Alto Airport Joint Community Relations Committee
(PAAJCRC). The project had been under discussion and review for
almost four years and tremendous effort had gone into securing the
federal funding. The project had been on the PAAJCRC agenda at
least 25 times. He complimented City staff on its review of.the
SCC proposal for its sensitivity to many of the issues such as
trying to strike an appropriate balance between what was essential
to meet the FAA standards, what was required for security, and what
was necessary to be environmentally sensitive. Hundreds of!
thousands of dollars worth of theft and vandalism had occurred, and
continued damage occurred daily to airplane operations due to the
poor surface conditions of .the airport. The costs were borne
people who paid fees to the City and SCC for the use of the airport
and who saw a continual deterioration. He urged the Council to
accept the Planning Department recommendations and to move forward
with the project.
Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, said when the item was before the
Council six weeks prior, a letter received from the Sierra Club
suggested the various parties get together to agree on a compromise
that would meet both the safety needs and the environmental
concerns. The~project file indicated that Jim Gilliland contacted
the involved parties, but SCC had not made an effort to meet with
the appellant or other interested parties. The ~area was an
environmentally sensitive one, and including members of the
environmental community who were concerned about the Baylands was
important. SCC’s process was different from the City’s with the
type of application,’ and the Roads and ~Airports Department
conducted its own environmental review, and brought the project
forward to the Board of Supervisors. SCC’s Planning Department
knew nothing about the project because there was no project file
kept there. Stall,to-staff communication to induce communications
among the environmentalist and the users .of the airport had not
worked. He suggested that the Council continue the item to give
the SCC Supervisors an opportunity to bring the parties together.
He was confident a solution would result that met the needs of both
the airport users and the environmental community. He believed the
airport users’ concerns also involved the question of funding.
Their concerns could be met by adequate funding for more security
guards. The Roads and Airport Department had rejected that
proposal and brought forward the solution of the fencing and
lighting as a substitute for spending money on adequate security.
The elected officials in SCC could help resolve these issues and
were in a place to bring the parties together.
Robert Lenox, 1745 Webster Street, was the president of the Airport
Association and had an aircraft at the .airport. He said the
06/29/98 86-422
physical condition of the airport was poor, and aircraft were being
damaged on a daily basis because the asphalt was coming apart. A
full-time security guard was present for 7 hours after. SCC
personnel went home, providing almost 24-hour coverage. The
lighting and fencing were for personal safety and security because
the area was very dark. He did a great dea! of flying at night and
inspected his aircraft before each flight. Using a flashlight was
difficult. A compromise had been made in terms of.the light pole
height as they were normally higher. A great deal of work had been
done in terms of mitigation. He urged the Council to take action
on the item that evening.
Council Member Mossar clarified ~he airport had .hours of operation
and asked whether lighting would only be needed to check over the,
aircraft during hours of operation.
Mr. Lenox said the airport control tower was in operation during.
the busiest hours,7 a.m. to 9 p.m. The airport was, however, a 24-
hour facility, and the runway lights were on and the airport was
open for business. He occasionally left at 3 a.m. or returned home
after midnight.
Mr. Bennett said the lighting and fencing had a multipurpose
objective: I) to keep the honest people out, and 2) to keep large
animals out. People and animals presented a safety hazard to
aircraft. The airport had a high rate of runway incursion by FAA
standards. A security guard had been employed 7 days a week, 7
hours a night. Without adequate lighting, the security guard’s job
was more difficult. Lighting and fencing went .together with
security and the~operation of the airport.
Mr. Brody referred to the overhead and said the alternative fencing
suggestion was not a viable option because it was closer to the
runway than was permitted by FAA standards. To move the fence
between there and its proposed location would run it through the
middle of the wetlands. He also noted the area to be covered by
lighting was too large to use motion detection lighting.
Mr. Hesler said many alternatives were considered for the location
of the fencing. The area contained salt marsh and wetlands, and
the area was redesigned to avoid those impacts. Almost any
location was a critica! habitat.
Ms. Renzel said she did not know the FAA’sexact regulation, but
-she had tried to duplicate the width of the runway to give a margin
of error. Since the original proposal suggested elevating the
fence, she thought 5er suggested location would not be any more
harmful than putting it in the wetland area at the base of the
slope. She did not know how the Army Corp of Engineers would view
a fence going through ~the wetlands, but there would be a minor
amount of fill which would allow movement underneath for the Salt
Marsh Harvest Mouse.
06/29/98 86-423
Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing Closed.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Huber, toapprove
the staff recommendation to uphold the decision of the Interim
Director.of Planning 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 Apri! 2, 1998, meeting.
Vice Mayor Schneider understood what the environmental community
was attempting to do and supported those efforts.. However, having
previously flown out of Palo Alto Airport for a number of years and
knowing that no improvements had been made to the airport in the
last ten years; she could only well imagine how the airport had
deteriorated further. The airport was dangerous, many near misses’
occurred, security was an issue, and the safety regulations were
required by the FAA.
Council Member Mossar would n~t support the motion. There were
some environmental considerations she did not believe, hid been
fully worked out. The third finding of the ARB said there was no
sensitive uses in the immediate or surrounding vicinity. She did
not know of a more sensitive use than the wetlands that surrounded
the airport. In general, her suspicions were confirmed that more
care needed to be taken. She wanted the project to receive more
environmental scrutiny. Some members of the public had suggested
referring the project to the Planning Commission for site and
design review or getting the parties together to arrive at a
cooperative solution that worked for all parties.
Council Member Knisssaid she had walked or ran in that area for.a
long time and believed the area would be impacted. She simply did
not have enough information at the current time to support the
motion. Fences seemed the antithesis of what went into a baylands
or supported, animal life. The one area that really disturbed her
was the lighting. The thought of the area looking like the ball.
park was troubling.
Council Member Ojakian was unclear about the type of lighting that
was required because he did not believe the FAA necessarily
dictated the exact type of device being used. He was not
comfortable making a decision in that area withthe current amount
of information. He asked what the next step in the process would
be if the Council opposed the project that evening.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council would have an
opportunity to move and vote to sustain the appeal, at which point
the Council would needto give staff information to make findings
to support that decision. Alternatively, the Council could refer
the project back to the parties for some additiona! meetings or
referra! to the Planning Commission.
06/29/98 86-424
Mr. Gilliland said if the Council chose the second alternative, the
project could either be referred back to the ARB for review or for
continuance .to return it to the Council to allow time .for the
applicants/appellants to meet.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the process could include
additional public meetings and be limited to a specific time frame.
Mr. Gilliland said yes. If a decision could not be reached easily
between the parties, the project could be returned to the Council
indicating progress had not been made.
SUBSTITUTE MOTIO~ TO REFER: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded
by Kniss, to refer the appeal back to staff for a period not to!
exceed six months during which time ~there will be public meetings"
between the applicants and other interested parties to resolve some
of the issues that were raised.
Council Member- Wheeler supported the substitute motion. She
confirmed that the funding for the project was in part federal
funding. She asked whether there was a time frame in which the
funds needed to be expended.
Mr. Gilliland said the project was primarily federally funded. ~The
City was not funding the project.
~Mr. Bennett said the funding was not at risk~
Mr. Gilliland said the construction schedule was a time factor. If
the schedule were’ delayed, another year would be added for
construction.
Council Member Wheeler thought Council Member Ojakian was going to
suggest a bifurcated project to permit the resurfacing and
upgrading of the tarmac. She was unsure whether SCC would consider
that option because of other infrastructure work that might need to
take place todo the lighting. However, if the resurfacing could
be done independently, she asked whether that would help the
applicants.
Mr. Bennett said the plans for the project were 95 percent
completed and included the whole package. The lighting would have
to be installed before the resurfacing and was tied together from
a scheduling and construction phasing. There were 250 airplanes
that needed to be moved in four phases; the project was complex~
Council Member Wheeler confirmed that a bifurcated project was not
possible. She would support the motion.
Council Member Kniss reiterated her concerns regarding the
lighting.
06/29/98 86-425
Mayor Rosenbaum opposed the substitute motion. He did not believe
a better location could be found for the fence and believed the
lighting was a long delayed necessity for the airport.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO REFER PASSED 4-3, Huber, Schneider, Rosenbaum
"no," Eakins, Fazzino absent.
~RECESS: I0:I0 P.M. - 10:20 P.M.
PU~IC HEARINGS
I0. ~UBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the
a~lication of Classic Communities for a zone change from RM~
15 ~d RM-30 to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the~
demo~tion of an existing vacant former "Card Club" and
~ access~y totaling 4,850 square feet and construction of new
26-unit~esidential townhouses and related site improvements l
lo~ted a~I00-4120 E1 Camino Real. "Senior Planner ~Brl~n Dolan said the applicants program development ¯
statement was inadg~rtently left out of the Counci!’s packet and
was provided at place~. The statement included the proposed pubic
benefit.in the words h~ the applicant as opposed to the summary
provided by staff in the~lanning Commission staff report and other
documentstion. A secon~kitem came to Staff’s attention after
distribution of the staff r~ort (CMR:289:98) regarding one of the
trees that was recommended t~kbe maintained on the site. The tree
was in the vicinity of p;opo~ed Lot 14~ Staff had determined
through discussions with the a~lican~ that in fact the tree was
mislocat~/ $?..the plags an~ wa~located in what would be the
propose~~ .en.velop% o~ Unit~4. ~Staff had worked that day "
in an atte.m.pt to. fi.nd a sglution to ~e situation and proposed two
optio~he .project bac~k though the-process to ARB and
the Planning Commission .to resolVe th~ issue, or 2) staff was
willin~t~a~ion for the ~st tree with a specific
Conditio~l which s~ggested a ~placement of the lost
tree, a~ature, healthy Black~alnut, with new trees
planted on the site at.locations to b~ approve~by staff. At least
one trestle vicinity of ~e lost tree and a
combine~_ot._cr0wn. Additl~nally, the trees
needed to_be ~ m~nimum_siz~.of an 84~inch box.- ~
Planning Commissioner Patrick Butt said the Planning ~qmmissioners
were in ge~. for~ ~he dedicated~ark space
and the~!l~la~dscaping al~g the E1
Camino , andthe g mendManagegeon the ethe P1
20-foot diameter canopies to replace that canopy.
06/29/98 86-426
Attachment C
County of Santa Clara
Roads and Airports Department
Airports Division
2500 CunP, ingham Avenue
$an Jose. Califomia 95148
1408) 929-1060 FAX 929-8617
Reid-Hillview Airport Palo Alto Airport
929-2256 (650) 856-7833
South Count.\" Airport
(408) (~83-4741
Date:October 14, 1998
To:
From:
Subject:
City of Palo Alto, Honorable City Council
Jerome T. Bennett, Director, Santa Clara County Airports
1925 Embarcadero Road: Appeal of the Intedm 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
The County recommends the Palo Alto City Council uphold the City’s staff recommendation as
previously submitted and the decision of the Interim Director of Planning 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.
Back_~round
On June 26, 1998, the Palo Alto City Coun.cil deferred (continued) action on the proposed
safety and operational improvement to the Palo Alto Airport as proposed by the County of
Santa Clara. This action was taken in response to an appeal filed regarding the decision of the
intedm director of Planning and Community Environment to uphold the Palo Alto Architectural
Review Board recommendation to the City Council regarding the safety and operational
improvements to the Palo Alto Airport.
The City Council requested that the County and City staff meet with the appellants regarding
their concems and specific issues with the proposed project.
Meetino_ with Ap_Dellants
On July 22, 1998, a meeting with the appellants (attachment 1) was held regarding the overall
project and the efforts both the County and the project consultants have taken to address
potential impacts on the environment and measures taken to avoid or mitigate potential
impacts.
After an overview of the project by the County and its project consultants, the two principal
areas regarding the appellants expressed objections were addressed: (1) the location and
height of the secudty fencing east (bay side) of the runway and near the levee, and (2) the
proposed security lights for the aircraft parking/storage (apron) area.
After considerable discussion on these two items, there appeared to be acceptance of the fence
location but with the height of the fence remaining of some concern.
Board of Supervisors: Donald. F. Gage. Blanca Al\’arado. Pete McHugh, James T. Beall Jr.. S. Joseph Similian ~
C()~.tl’tty Exet’t|fi’ve: Ricl~ard Wittenberg 7~,
City of Palo Alto, Honorable City Council
October 14, 1998
2of4
With respect to the project proposed lights in the aircraft parking/storage (apron) area, the
appellant requested that all of the proposed lighting be removed from the project. The County
position was that to remove the proposed lighting from the project would not be acceptable;
because of ongoing security and liability concerns. Both the County and its consultants felt that
additional information should be secured regarding the proposed fencing and lighting in order to
provide the Palo Alto City Council with additional information from which to make a decision on
these two issues and the project as a whole. The following is provided regarding the proposed
fencing and apron lighting.
Fencin_~
Desio_n Criteria: FAA Advisory Circular 107-1 recommends that air operations areas of
aidine airports be secured by 8-foot high fencing with barbed wire on top. No specific criteria
are established for general aviation airports. However, for occasions adjacent to roads and
in other publicly accessible areas, the typical airport fence height is 6 feet.
Proposed De~n: The proposed perimeter fencing for Palo Alto Airport is designed as
follows:
The airport project perimeter fence will be 6 feet high, black vinyl coated, chain link.
The black vinyl coating helps the fence to blend with the background and is less
visible than non-coated chain link fence.
The project fence will be installed so as to have a continuous 3-inch opening along
the bottom. This opening is intended to allow for the passage of small animals such
as the salt marsh harvest mouse.
Fencing along the levee/pedestrian path to the east (bay side) of the runway will be
constructed at the toe (bottom/lower area) of the levee. A person looking toward the
runway while on the levee path will see over the top of the fence and would not have
an obstructed view.
The suggested alternative of placing the fence closer to the runway would result in
the fence being more in the line of sight of people walking along the path. More
significantly, such locations would (1) either be in violation of FAA runway safety
standards regarding its location and distance from the runway (the runway safety
area must be free of obstacles in the event an aircraft experiences a control problem
and goes off the runway or has an emergency of some nature while taking off or
landing, and goes off the runway;) or (2) would require the fence to pass through the
wetland areas, which would be unacceptable.
Note: The chain link perimeter fence around the municipal golf course adjacent to
the Palo Alto Airport is presently 6 feet high.
3Of4City of Palo Alto, Honorable City Council
October 14, 1998
Desio_n Criteria: Guidelines for recommended illumination levels for aircraft apron
lighting are set forth both in FAA Advisory Circular 107-1, Aviation Security- Airports
and in the Illumination Engineering Society (IES) of North Amedca (IES) Lighting
Handbook, 8th edition.
Advisory Circular 107-1 says that "Security lighting requirements should be made on the
basis of needs for good visibility and based on the following criteria: personnel
recognition and identification, vehicle inspection, detection of intruders, deterrent to
illegal entry, etc."
The IES Handbook states: =Apron floodlighting is located so as to provide adequate
illuminances on all apron service areas, with a minimum of glare to pilots of aircraft in
flight and on the ground, airport controllers and personnel on the apron. High-mounted
luminaires with a good optical cutoff will guard against glare for pilots."
The IES handbook lists ~’ecommended illumination levels for a wide vadety of activities.
Some examples are:
Activity_
Major league baseball fields
Service station pump island
Recreational/municipal baseball fields
Golf course driving range
Pedestrian areas around buildings~
Parking lots
Aircraft aproll f~rea~
Streets
Illumination Level
(foot-candles)
100-150
20-30
10-20
5-10
5
3-7
,,, 0,5-2
0.2-0.75
Note: The proposed apron lighting at the Palo Alto Airport where aircraft are
parkedlstored is 0.5 foot-candles (brightness).
¯Typical height of poles for floodlights is 50 feet. The proposed apron light poles are
designed to be 32 feet in height.
Proposed Desio_n: Features of the apron lighting design for Paio Alto include:
The proposed apron lighting is necessary for security and safety. It will help deter theft
and vandalism of aircraft equipment and will provide minimal (but sufficient) illumination
for pilots and passengers to walk around aircraft.
The lighting design will provide an illumination level of 0.5 foot-candles. This
level is essentially eo_uivalent to a full moon on a clear night.
City of Palo Alto, Honorable City Council
October 14, 1998
4of4
The lighting will use =cut-off" fixtures. These cut-off fixtures throw light downward and
have low glare. This lighting is not comoarable to bali.Dark li_ohtin_o (100-150 foot-
candles), which are designed to shine outward and have an upward glow.
Light bulbs tobe used will be high-pressure sodium (HPS). This type of-bulb is pinkish in
color. HPS bulbs oroduce the least amount of _olare and are most unobtrusive. By
comparison, metal halide bulbs produce a bright, white light which has more glare.
The proposed lighting will be substantially less intrusive than that from the adjacent.golf
course driving range and wastewater treatment plant, portions of which is closer to the
baylands than the aircraft parking apron.
Summary_
The County and its respective consultants have taken extraordinary measures in designing this
project.
~The County staff and consultants have developed a project which is believed to be a good
balance between the needs of the aviation tenants and users of the airport and the airport
environs.
As the airport lessee, the County of Santa Clara has an obligation to ensure that the proposed
project meets safety, security, and environmental objectives in a manner consistent with the
"various Federal, State, and Local Government agencies that regulate a project of this nature.
The project has been developed over the past three to four years with the utmost care and
consideration with respect to the sensitive bayland area the airport is adjacent to.
To our knowledge, the appellants have not presented any quantifiable data that would Support
their position regarding potential impacts the project as proposed, would-have on the environs
adjacent to the airport or property uses adjacent to the airport.
Attachment 1: July 10, 1998 meeting notice with appellants.
C:City of East Palo Alto, Office of the Mayor, 2200 University Avenue,
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates, 707 Aviation Boulevard,
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Airport Joint Community Relations Committee, c/o Bill Fellman,
Real Property Manager, City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto Airport Association, 3409 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Peninsula Conservation Center, 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Appellants (Emily Renzel, and Florence La Riviera)
Divisions
Inspection Services
Planning
Transportation
July 10, 1998
Jerry Bennett
Director of Aviation for Santa Clam County
Roads and Airport Division
2500 Cunningham Avenue
San Jose, CA 95148
Subject: Palo Alto Airport
Dear Mr. Bennett:
Cityof Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
RECEIVED
J U L 1 5 1998
Airport. Admin.
This shall confirm a meeting to discuss the proposed Palo Alto Airport safety and
maintenance improvements. The meeting is scheduled for July 22, 1998 from 9:30 AM
to 11:30 AM in the City Council Conference Room on the 1st floor of the Palo Alto Civic
¯ Center, 250 Hamilton Avenue.
The meeting is being scheduled as a follow-up to the June 29, 1998, Palo Alto City
Council continuance of the application from the Santa Clam county Roads and Airport
Division. This is intended to be an informal meeting to discuss the reasons for the
project, the alternatives considered and to explore options for solving the identified
issues. The topics for discussion will include resurfacing of the runway, taxiways and
tarmac; the perimeter fencing; the airplane parking area lighting; and other issues
specifically related to the application. Only one meeting is being scheduled at this time
and every attempt will be made to resolve the issues at this meeting.
The meeting time has been coordinated with the following people, but other participants
are welcome to attend:
¯Jerry Bennet, Director of Aviation, Santa Clara County Roads and Airport Division
¯Herb Borock, interested party
¯Julia Bott, Chapter Director, Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club
¯Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates
¯Peter Carpenter, Airport Joint ~ommunity Relations Committee
¯John Hesler, David Powers & Associates
¯Florence La Riviere, appellant
¯Emily Renzel, appellant
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2404
650.329.2154 fax
Jerry Bennett
July 10, 1998
Page 2
Thank you in.advance for your interest and participation. If you need additional
information on the project or the meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me at 650-
329-2679.
Sincerely,
JAMES E. GILLILAND
Assistant Planning Official
ce:City Council
June Fleming
Bill Fellman
Debbie Pollart
S :~LAN~P LADIV~S HARE~L.TAPMTG
NOV-]B-1998 llON 02:30 Ptl DAVID J POI,IERS & ASSO0 F~ NO, 408 248 9641
Attachment D
November 16, 1998
Ed Oawf, Director ofCommunity Development
City of Palo’ Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject:Environmental Issues - Palo Alto Airport Safety/Operational Project
Dear Mr. Oawf:
David J, Powers & Associates and H.T. Harvey & Associates were retained to .evaluate the
environmental impacts of the above-referenced project on behalf of Santa Clara County, the CEQA
Lead Agency, with input to the City of Palo Alto as a Responsible Agency, respectively. Prior to
our preparation of the Initial Study in 1997, we worked extensively with the County for the purpose
of providing input on the project design so as to minimize or avoid e~vifonrrmntal impacts. As a
result of our input, the desi~,n of the project changed several times over the past several years.
Specific-changes includ~ the following:
Relocation of airfield fencing to avoid wetlands and salt marsh harvest mouse habitaL
Placement of holes along bottom of fencing to allow passage of wildlife.
Elimination of plans to m!ocat~ the taxiway due to sensitive habitat.
Creation of new -wetland habitat onsite at a 2: I mitiption-to-impact ratio.
Reduction in the height of the lighting poles from 50 f~t (standard) to 32 feet.
Placement of shields on lighting fixtures to focus lights away from habitat.
W~¢n I pr~)~ed the Initial Study. I studied the issue of the possible effect of the proposed security
ligh~ng on ~ ncar’oy s~zsitive habitat. As required by CEQA, the cff~ts of the project must be
analyzed in the context of the existing cnvironmcnr, al seeing. During a night’time site visit, I noted
that the Airport is adjacent to the driving range of the Palo Alto Golf Course, a fa~lity which has
large lighting fixtures which brightly light a large area (as approved by the Palo Alto City Council
in 1995). In addition, the Airport is adjacent to the Palo Alto Wastewater Treama~nt Plant, a facility
with bright floodlights. Evaluating the proposed Iow-lev¢1 Airport security lighting (with shields to
focus the lighting downward) in the conmxt of these existing facilities, I could find no basis for
concluding that the lighting would result in any significant impacts.
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1885 The Alnm~da ¯ S~lt¢ 204 ¯ San Jose, CA 95126. Tot: 408-24~-3500 ¯ Fax: 408-248-q641
P, 03/03
Ed Gawf
November 16, 1998
Page Two
At the ]’uly 22, 1998 meeting with thc appellants, no one could point to any studies which indicate
a wildlife-rela~¢d problem associated with the proposed lighting. After that meeting, Harvey &
Associates conducted an extensive lircramr~ search a~ Stanford University on th$ subject of the effect
of artificial lighting on wildlife. The search found no smdi~s which are relevant to the ryp~ of
lighting being proposed at the Palo Alto Airport.
Based upon this information, i~ is my professional judgement that the proposed project is eligible for
a Mitigated Nega~iv~ Declaration under CEQA. Both ourselves and I-larwy & Associates are
comformbl~ in Concluding.l:hat the security lighting, as currently proposed by the Airport., would not
havc an adverse affect on the n~arby Baylands.
Pleas~ fee[ fr~ to call me if you have any fu~-~er questions regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
,John M. Hesler
SeniorEnvimnmenlxl Specialis~
CO.]’~rry Bennett, SantoClara Count),
Ken Brody, Shut~-Mocn & Associates
Pa~ Boursicr, H.T. Harvey & Associates