HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 262-09City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: JUNE 1,2009
TYPE OF REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 262:09
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the
Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport
(p AO CL UP) by 1) Amending Map L-2 to include the Airport Influence Area
(AlA) established in the P AO CLUP and 2) Amending the "Land Use" Element to
include Program L-2B and a supplemental text box to establish a program for
monitoring development within the AlA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The State established the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to ensure orderly growth in the areas
around public airports and to accomplish the ALUC established the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
(CL UP) guidelines. The State placed responsibility for enforcing the guidelines on the local jurisdiction
. and as a result, the City and the ALUC are in a partnership to provide this orderly growth. To facilitate
the partnership, the State requires that the City's regulations be consistent with the CLUP guidelines
and even though Palo Alto's existing regulations are consistent, Palo Alto must demonstrate that
consistency by incorporating the P A 0 CL UP into the Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the Planning and
Transportation Commission both recommend that the Council amend the City's Comprehensive Plan to
ensure the consistency of the City's plan with County guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recomn1end that the City Council
adopt a resolution (Attachment F) to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Santa Clara
County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport (P AO CLUP) (Attachment A) by 1)
Amending Map L-2 to include the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established in the PAO CLUP and 2)
Amending the "Land Use" Element to include Program L-2B and a supplemental text box to establish a
program for monitoring development within the AIA. (Attachments B & C)
BACKGROUND
In 1971, the County of Santa Clara established the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to be
responsible for the protection of people and property within the vicinity of airports. In 1973, the
ALUC adopted a Countywide Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Countywide CLUP) to help provide
that protection.
CMR:262:09 Page 1 of4
The Countywide CLUP fulfilled its function by regulating non-airport land use and structures in the
vicinity of the airport. The Countywide CL UP contained guidelines that limited concentrations of
people in areas susceptible to accidents and restricted new structures or activities that would interfere
with navigable airspace. The Countywide CLUP included Airport Influence Areas (AlAs) for each
airport that identified properties subject to its guidelines. These AlAs encompassed the areas
typically over flown by aircraft using each airport.
The Countywide CL UP was amended over the years. Then, around 2002, the County began a
transition from the single, Countywide CLUP to airport-specific documents that focus on issues
related to each individual airport in the County of Santa Clara. As a result of that effort, the ALUC
finalized a Draft PAD CLUP in early 2008.
In February 2008, ALUC staff began discussions with City staff as well as representatives from
neighboring jurisdictions to address concerns and to outline the responsibilities of the City.
Between February and August, ALUC staff conducted an outreach meeting with the Joint
Community Relations Committee (JCRC) and attended a City Selection meeting, with Council
Member Morton, to inform other City-elected officials about the PAD CLUP. On August 11,2008,
the ALUC staff held a community outreach meeting in Palo Alto to formally present the proposed
PAD CLUP to the local community. At the August meeting, only one issue was raised: Planning
and Transportation Commissioner Keller asked for clarification regarding the logistics of
implementing a requirement for an avigation easement. Between August and November, the
County prepared an Initial Study and issued a Negative Declaration. City staff reviewed the
environmental document and concluded it was adequate. On November 19,2008, the County
adopted the Negative Declaration (Attachment D) and the PAD CLUP. (Attachment A)
DISCUSSION:
State law mandates that the City incorporate the PAD CLUP into its Comprehensive Plan within
180 days of the County's adoption date. Proposed Program L-2B (See Attachment C; page L-5)
will be implemented in partnership with ALUC in that some projects will be referred to ALUC for
review and recommendation. Referrals will be based on the criteria described in the proposed
supplemental text (See Attachment C; page L-7). In general, policy events will be mandatory
referrals and development proposals will be voluntary referrals. In both cases, the ALUC
recommendations will be advisory. As the City's regulations are at least as restrictive as those in
the PAD CLUP, it is anticipated that the ALUC's recommendations will not be different from
what the City would require, except that the ALUC may recommend an avigation easement
(Attachment E) as a condition. The purposes of an avigation easement are: 1) the continuation of
the public's right to use the described airspace for flying; and 2) to ensure that prospective
property buyers are made aware of the airport and its impacts.
Since the ALUC adopted the PAD CLUP, there have been proposals within the AlA. A proposal
to remodel the business park at 1840 Embarcadero Road was not referred to the ALUC. A
proposal for a new hotel at 1700 Embarcadero Road was a mandatory referral because it would
require an amendment to the Zoning Code and to the Comprehensive Plan. If those amendments
were not required, the proposed hotel would have been a "voluntary" referral. The ALUC's
review of that hotel proposal resulted in a single recommendation-an avigation easement.
CMR:262:09 Page 2 of4
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 29, 2009, the PTC considered staffs PowerPoint presentation (Attachment I) and
recommended (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Garber absent) that the City Council adopt the proposed
resolution with a modification to the proposed Comprehensive Plan text to further clarify the
ALUC referral criteria. This clarification is reflected in Attachment B.
The PTC also discussed the following topics in relation to the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendments:
Effects of possible future changes at the airport: Staff noted that if the management of the
airport changed, the proposed Comprehensive Plan text would remain appropriate. However, if
the airport were closed completely, then the City would likely amend the Comprehensive Plan
again-to delete reference to the PAD CLUP.
Determining structure height compliance: The existing elevation of an individual site will be
considered when determining whether a proposed building complies with applicable height
restrictions.
Impact on future flood protection levees and other protective measures that will he developed
by the South Bay Shoreline Study: Staff indicated to the PTC that construction of the Hood
protection levees would not be a required referral to the ALUC. Subsequent to the PTC meeting,
staff identified two segments of the levee system (segments at either end of the runway), that are
within the "Approach Surface" as well as the "Runway Protection Zone". The PAD CLUP
contains restrictions that apply to these areas. These restrictions apply on account of Federal
Aviation Regulations and ALUC regulations and not as a result of incorporating the PAD CLUP
into the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Any future flood-control improvements will need to
comply with federal, state, and local regulations.
In addition to the above discussion topics, a list of questions was submitted by Commissioner
Fineberg. Those questions and responses provided at the PTC meeting are attached. (See
Attachment J)
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The PAD CLUP guidelines are compatible with existing Comprehensive Plan policies that support
compatible land uses in the vicinity of the airport. They also reinforce the existing Comprehensive
Plan policies by identifying an area subject to airport over flights and serve as notice of potential
noise and safety impacts from airport operations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Negative Declaration for this amendment to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use
Commission's Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports was adopted by
Santa Clara County on November 19, 2008. (Attachment D).
RESOURCE IMPACTS:
Incorporating the PAO CLUP into the City'S Comprehensive Plan reduces the potential
impact of the PAO CL UP on staff resources. As described earlier, once the City incorporates
the PAO CLUP, only certain projects must be referred to the ALUC for review. If the City
does not incorporate the PAO CLUP,
CMR:262:09 Page 3 of4
the City will be obligated, by State law, to refer all proposals within the AlA-regardless of
the type or size. The need to coordinate those additional ALUC referrals would be a greater
impact.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD-REVIEW:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport
B. Proposed amended Comprehensive Plan Map L-2 showing AlA
C. Proposed amended Comprehensive Plan Pages L-5 through L-7 showing new Program L-2B
and supplemental text box (reflects PTC recommended modification)
D. Negative Declaration
E. Proposed Grant of A vigation Easement to the City of Palo Alto
F. Proposed Resolution
G. PTC staff report of April 29, 2009 (no attachments)
H. Excerpt from PTC n1eeting minutes of April 29, 2009
I. PTC Meeting PowerPoint presentation
J. Questions submitted by Planning and Transportation Commissioner Fineberg with responses
provided at the Planning and Transportation meeting
COURTESY COPIES:
Palo Alto Airport Working Group (PAA WG)
Palo Alto Airport Association
Mark Connolly, Santa Clara County Planning Department liaison to the ALUC
CMR:262:09 Page 4 of4
.-.
&2035(+(16,9(/$1'86(3/$1
6$17$&/$5$ &2817<
3$/2$/72$,53257
$'237('
%\WKH
6$17$&/$5$ &2817<
$,53257/$1'86(&200,66,21
6DQ-RVH&DOLIRUQLD
1RYHPEHU
3UHSDUHGE\
:DOWHU%:LQGXV3(
$YLDWLRQ&RQVXOWDQW
6DUDWRJD&UHHN'U
6DUDWRJD&DOLIRUQLD
$WWDFKPHQW$
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the review, comments and recommendations provided by John Blair,
Bob Sturdivant, and Arthur Knopf in the development of this CLUP. The assistance of James Kiehl, Palo
Alto Airport management and the County of Santa Clara is also acknowledged with thanks and
appreciation.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .....................................................................................1-1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE.............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY................................................................................................................1-1
1.3 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY.............................................................................................1-2
1.4 CONTENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN ...............................................1-2
1.5 TECHNICAL REFERENCE DOCUMENT ...............................................................................1-2
2 PALO ALTO AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS...................................................................................2-1
2.1 AIRPORT ROLE.........................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN .......................................................................................................2-1
2.2.1 Existing Airport Facilities....................................................................................................2-4
2.2.2 Future Airport Facilities ......................................................................................................2-5
2.3 AVIATION ACTIVITY..............................................................................................................2-5
2.3.1 Based Aircraft......................................................................................................................2-5
2.3.2 Aircraft Operations..............................................................................................................2-5
2.4 AIRPORT ENVIRONS...............................................................................................................2-9
3 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES.............................................................................3-1
3.1 OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA..............................................................................3-1
3.3 NOISE RESTRICTION AREA...................................................................................................3-1
3.3.1 Airport Noise Descriptors....................................................................................................3-2
3.3.2 Land Use Compatibility Standards – California..................................................................3-2
3.3.3 Land Use Compatibility Standards - Santa Clara County....................................................3-3
3.3.4 Land Use Compatibility Standards – City of Palo Alto.......................................................3-3
3.3.5 Palo Alto Airport Noise Contours .......................................................................................3-3
3.3.6 Aircraft Operations..............................................................................................................3-3
3.3.7 Impacts on Land Use...........................................................................................................3-6
3.4 HEIGHT RESTRICTION AREA................................................................................................3-8
3.4.1 Primary Surface...................................................................................................................3-8
3.4.2 Approach Surface................................................................................................................3-8
3.4.3 Transitional Surface.............................................................................................................3-8
3.4.4 Horizontal Surface...............................................................................................................3-8
3.4.5 Conical Surface..................................................................................................................3-11
3.4.6 Summary............................................................................................................................3-11
3.5 SAFETY RESTRICTION AREA .............................................................................................3-11
3.5.1 Runway Protection Zone ...................................................................................................3-13
3.5.2 Turning Sector Defined .....................................................................................................3-13
3.5.3 Inner Safety Zone ..............................................................................................................3-13
3.5.4 Turning Safety Zone..........................................................................................................3-13
3.5.5 Outer Safety Zone..............................................................................................................3-13
3.5.6 Sideline Safety Zone..........................................................................................................3-14
3.5.7 Traffic Pattern Zone...........................................................................................................3-14
3.6 OVERFLIGHT RESTRICTION AREA ...................................................................................3-14
3.7 AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA...............................................................................................3-14
iii
4 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY POLICIES...................................................................................4-1
4.1 LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES..............................................................................................4-1
4.2 JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.................................................................................4-1
4.2.1 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission............................................................4-1
4.2.2 Affected Local Agencies .....................................................................................................4-3
4.2.3 Airport Owner/Operator Responsibilities............................................................................4-4
4.3 COMPATIBILITY POLICIES....................................................................................................4-4
4.3.1 General Compatibility .........................................................................................................4-4
4.3.2 Noise Compatibility.............................................................................................................4-5
4.3.3 Height Compatibility...........................................................................................................4-5
4.3.4 Tall Structure Compatibility................................................................................................4-7
4.3.5 Safety Compatibility............................................................................................................4-7
4.3.6 Overflight ............................................................................................................................4-9
4.3.7 Reconstruction...................................................................................................................4-10
4.3.8 Infill...................................................................................................................................4-10
5 IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL PLANS AND ZONING.........................................................5-1
5.2 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ...................................................................................................5-1
5.2.1 Airport Overlay Zones.........................................................................................................5-1
5.2.2 Avigation Easements...........................................................................................................5-2
5.2.3 Buyer Awareness Measures.................................................................................................5-3
5.2.4 Methods of Calculating Density and Building Occupancy..................................................5-4
6 BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................................6-1
7 APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................7-1
8 APPENDIX B.....................................................................................................................................8-1
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2 - 1 Aviation Activity Forecasts......................................................................................................2-7
Table 3 - 1 Airport Configuration and Runway Use ..................................................................................3-4
Table 3 - 2 Annual Aircraft Operations......................................................................................................3-5
Table 3 - 3 FAR Part 77 Surfaces.............................................................................................................3-10
Table 4 - 1 Noise Compatibility Guidelines...............................................................................................4-6
Table 4 - 2 Safety Zone Compatibility Guidelines.....................................................................................4-8
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Location Map...............................................................................................................................2-2
Figure 2 Airport Layout Plan......................................................................................................................2-3
Figure 3 Palo Alto Typical Aircraft Flight Tracks, Rwy 31.……...…….………..……………………… 2-6
Figure 3 Palo Alto Typical Aircraft Flight Tracks, Rwy 13.……...…….………..……………………… 2-7
Figure 4 General Plan Land Use...............................................................................................................2-10
Figure 5 2022 Aircraft Noise Contours......................................................................................................3-7
Figure 6 FAR Part 77 Surfaces...................................................................................................................3-9
Figure 7 Airport Safety Zones..................................................................................................................3-12
Figure 8 Airport Influence Area...............................................................................................................3-15
vi
Section 1
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is intended to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants
within the vicinity of Palo Alto Airport (also referred to as the "Airport" throughout this report) and the
aircraft occupants. This CLUP is also intended to ensure that surrounding new land uses do not affect the
Airport’s continued operation. This CLUP applies only to those areas within Santa Clara County, and only
provides a reference for the use of the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission and San Mateo
County agencies, to the extent they wish to use it.
Specifically, the CLUP seeks to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure that
people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no
structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. The implementation of this CLUP is intended to
prevent future incompatible development from encroaching on the Airport and allow for its development in
accordance with the current airport master plan.
The aviation activity forecast for the Airport was updated to reflect the existing aviation activity and
provide at least a 20-year forecast of activity. The updated aviation activity forecast formed the basis for
preparation of 2022 aircraft noise contours. The Airport Master Plan and updated aviation activity forecast
and available aircraft noise contours formed the basis for preparation of this CLUP.
1.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY
The Public Utilities Code of the State of California, Sections 21670 et seq. authorizes each county to
establish an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and defines its range of responsibilities, duties and
powers. The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission is composed of 7 members, two appointed
by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, two appointed by the Santa Clara County City Selection
Committee, two appointed by a committee composed of the Aviation Director of San Jose International
Airport and the Director of the County Roads and Airports Department and one appointed at large by the
ALUC.
Section 21675 requires the ALUC to formulate and maintain a comprehensive land use plan (CLUP) for the
area surrounding each public-use airport within Santa Clara County. A CLUP may also be developed for a
military airport at the discretion of the ALUC. The County has four public-use airports, San Jose
International, Palo Alto Airport, Reid-Hillview Airport and South County Airport, and one federally owned
airport, Moffett Federal Airfield. Palo Alto Airport is defined as a General Aviation Airport (as opposed to
an Air Carrier Airport) due to the type of aircraft that use this airport. Section 21675 also specifies that
comprehensive land use plans will:
(a) …provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the
airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the general welfare
of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The
commission plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan or an
airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of
Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the
next 20 years. In formulating a land use plan, the commission may develop height
restrictions on buildings, may specify use of land, and may determine building
standards, including soundproofing adjacent to airports, within the planning area. The
comprehensive land use plan shall be reviewed as often as necessary in order to
accomplish its purposes, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year.
1-1
1.3 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
Legislation passed by the State of California in 1967 mandated the creation of an Airport Land Use
Commission in each county that had an airport served by a scheduled airline or operated for use by the
general public. In conformance with this legislation the Planning Policy Committee, an existing decision-
making body with representation from the 5 cities and the County, was designated to be the Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) for Santa Clara County by the Board of Supervisors and the Select Committee of
Mayors. After certification by the California Secretary of State, the Airport Land Use Commission
officially came into existence in Santa Clara County in January of 1971. Their first land use policy plan
was adopted on June 28, 1973. The 1973 policy plan (the land use plan preceding this Comprehensive
Land Use Plan) was amended in 1974 and 1991, and last adopted by the ALUC in September 1992.
1.4 CONTENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan contains several major elements:
xThe existing and planned-for facilities at the Airport that are relevant to preparing the CLUP;
xAppropriate noise, height, and safety restriction policies and land use compatibility standards;
xSpecific findings of compatibility or incompatibility with respect to existing land uses, proposed
General Plan land uses, or existing zoning controls; and
xSpecific actions that need to be taken to make the County of Santa Clara and the cities’ General Plans,
Specific Plans, Master Plans and/or Zoning Ordinances consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan.
The CLUP establishes an airport land use planning area, referred to as the Airport Influence Area (AIA),
which sets the boundaries for application of ALUC Policy. The CLUP contains the relevant policies and
guidelines for land use compatibility and specific findings of compatibility or incompatibility of land uses
within the AIA. Of particular interest to the ALUC are areas "not already devoted to incompatible uses"
and, more specifically, undeveloped lands within the AIA. The planning effort is focused on identifying
these lands because the policies and standards of the plan are intended to control the compatibility of future
development in these areas.
The CLUP is not intended to define allowable land use for a specific parcel of land, although the plan
establishes development standards or restrictions that may limit or prohibit certain types of uses and
structures on a parcel. The CLUP is not retroactive with respect to existing incompatible land uses, but
discusses actions to be taken when expansion, replacement or other significant changes are made to
incompatible land uses.
1.5 TECHNICAL REFERENCE DOCUMENT
A separate Technical Reference Library is being maintained by the County of Santa Clara. The Technical
Reference Library will contain the major reference documents associated with the land use compatibility
planning criteria in this CLUP. The documents will be available for review at Santa Clara County Planning
Office.
1-2
Section 2
2 PALO ALTO AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS
2.1 AIRPORT ROLE
Palo Alto Airport is geographically located at the northwestern edge of Santa Clara County, on the western
shore of the southern portion of San Francisco Bay. The Airport is located on 103 acres of land, at an
elevation of 4 feet above mean sea level (at the FAA Airport Reference Point). The Airport is owned by
the City of Palo Alto but managed until 2017 by the County of Santa Clara. It is surrounded by the City of
Palo Alto on the west and south, San Francisco bay on the north and east and the City of East Palo Alto in
San Mateo County on the northwest. The location of the Airport with respect to nearby communities and
other airports is illustrated on Figure 1.
Palo Alto Airport (the Airport) is the smallest of the General Aviation airports in the county. General
Aviation is defined as all aviation other than Air Carrier (commercial passenger flights), Commuter/Air
Taxi and Military. While commercial airfreight is also a part of General Aviation, General Aviation
activity consists mostly of single-engine and small twin-engine aircraft, typically holding six or fewer
people. Palo Alto Airport has a full range of aircraft parking/storage facilities, aircraft fueling facilities and
aircraft support operations, commonly known as Fixed Base Operators (FBOs). FBO activities include
flight training, aircraft maintenance and repair, and aircraft engine overhaul facilities. The Airport is
constrained on three sides by San Francisquito Creek, San Francisco Bay and a bird sanctuary. It also lies
in the San Francisquito Creek flood plain and the Airport has flooded in past years.
Palo Alto Airport is classified as a General Aviation Reliever Airport. General Aviation Airports are
airports that do not have scheduled commercial air-carrier service. General Aviation Airports are the most
convenient source of air transportation for about 19 percent of the U.S. population and are particularly
important to corporate aircraft, based on the latest publication of the Federal Aviation Administration’s
(FAA) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) (2007-2011). The Palo Alto Airport is listed
in the NPIAS and is designated as a reliever airport.
Moffett Federal Airfield is the nearest airport to Palo Alto Airport, located 4 miles southeast. Moffett Field
is a federally owned airport operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The
nearest public use airport is San Carlos Airport located 8 miles northwest of the Airport. The nearest air-
carrier airport is San Jose International Airport, located 11 miles southeast of Palo Alto Airport. Other
airports in the vicinity are Hayward Executive Airport located 13 miles to north, San Francisco
International located 15 miles northwest, Metropolitan Oakland International Airport located 17 miles north
and Reid-Hillview Airport located 17 miles southeast.
2.2 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
The previous Palo Alto Airport, Airport Master Plan was accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) in June 1982. The most recent Airport Layout Plan (ALP), illustrated on Figure 2, delineates the
layout of existing Airport facilities as of June 2001. This ALP does not reflect the current airport
environment or airport data and is currently being revised. The FAA-approved ALP is used by the FAA for
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funds for eligible construction and development projects. AIP
grant funds are dispersed on the basis of a priority based on activity levels.
Selected data about the existing Airport facilities and information about its planned development are
presented in the following paragraphs.
2-1
EMBARCADERO RD
S A N
A N T O NIO
R D C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
X
P
Y
P A G E M I L L R D
EL
CAM
IN
O
R
E
A
L
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
E
XP
Y
O R EG O N E X P Y
J
U
N
I
P
E
R
O
S
E
RR
A
BLVD
·|}þ85
(/101
S an t a C l a r a C o untySan M a t eo Cou nty
§¨¦280
Figure 1
Palo Alto Airport
Location Map
SAN I=" RAN
,. A Y
AIRPORT DATA
AlRI'OtU MEFEA~rc:;:COOE AlIU'O+(]MEFE~~1\lCE1'Of!Q0~
NRP<)t{fELE\lATKif'I (AIlO'oeMlilFlSilRLM)
loEllil\.Mw.:<.IlMP.(~~~
N~I'¢t<TMIJln:IUl!INA.I.~
~;;-j-~=
~"""" ~"""" ~ M"""" 1a."'F(.I.J~ ~"""" 1IDI.IIiI''''IlI1lBilM ~"""" -~"'""" '''''' ~"""" ~"""" ". ~
~"'"""
DRAWING LeGEND
ACTI\<ENMFfB.l)MIt:loI:1iT
OnlltJllPAVtMl:f(fltl!.ll!lil:
DlRrOR{;!<A\l1LR}lID
AlRI'O+UI'~~RlYI.JI\E
OTtttl'l ~1'IOr1:1m'''''
I\VIGArION£NlBoIBtr
ItfltI'lNAl"KluI'!!YII'!YI'_I'I.C.'tf • .mI
~"""'" =-
N~~ltl.l:llJGtrTa;aINoG~
At'i'IOftuG!n
"""" 104'OGAAPHICCll'frCl.n>
WHLMlDloIIrrllCMIO!IMIU.
WA1~IfflM/Cl.U'Em
N~1'¢fl.l '-tHl'ltUI'OfQ
"1\DIIIQlllleDIr.biOWl'lQ:
I\I'L-"'~"""'''glnillll llfiIJ.-ilUl.:l:"'IlI_~U\Ii
1W\,-IY.zy~_
"" ____ 1_++_
IIC=====:::1
,.
==
:~:=~::-l'aw
., .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
"" ..
1Il'''-I'\lI~~~
MUNICIPAL
ALL-WEAl1-iER WIND ROSE
SOURCE: 1IiItJt'f.t\ rl6'kI D*l 1H9-11iilClii
~ 13-31 pnM'd61 97.n ~ wilt! 12 WH (10.5 Kia..) CfGIIII'WiiId compcn«rt..
AIPNOiEs
0~::n=:==I= D..a.aKTlGNI~~¢ffQlNC
®""M:Ij"'nQ;l'MlIIIl'liIJ'lX1M.IONf'~I.¥d"'''''
0 Dto1Iir:!0nII1'01II1'"_
~ ~ ~ ~
• 1\1J"..~JOo&tollJj.lOl"'llllal_\'WI~(r'o:II7'8.'VII~
.Yfi"'i'l'p.a1 .. I'I:o'1dID"~I.Itu:"",,,~r"""'"l'Chl:i""~
"
J !
~~
SlDiITTBlB'r. Crotty ~ Santa Dim.
DRAFT
FOR RE.VEWANC COMMENTOI'ILY.
SCENIC
,
H"42E: ~I:J:!D!I
MMI.W..RA.TECFCItfiHiE UW.
~o::-"""'l
_~ 12DOO RuI'!..ay 11'll!!!"O"::O It ShuU M;:';:od'CIMiI I Sftl1
PALO ALTO AIRPORT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
PALO ALTO, CAUFOANIA
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
2.2.1 Existing Airport Facilities
The existing airfield consists of a single runway, Runway 31-13. The runway has a paved surface 2,443
feet long by 68 feet wide with a 215 foot paved lead-in taxiway on the southwest end and a 240 foot paved
overrun on the northwest end and has medium intensity runway lights, and Runway End Identification
Lights (REILs) and Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI-4L) at both ends of the runway. The
existing maximum gross weight for single-wheel aircraft using the runways is as follows:
Aircraft Maximum Gross Weight (pounds)
Runway Gross Weight
31-13 12,500 lbs.
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, defines imaginary
surfaces that are used to identify obstructions to air navigation. The following tabular data shows the FAR
Part 77 approach slopes, compared with existing obstacle/obstruction controlled approach slopes and other
information relative to the controlling obstacle/obstructions based on the latest FAA Form 5010-1, Airport
Master Record, for Palo Alto Airport.
Controlling Obstacle/Obstruction:
Location from Runway Threshold Related to
Extended Runway Centerline
Runway
No.
Elevation
FAR Part
77 Slope Actual
Slope
Type of
Obstruction
Height
Above
Runway
Threshold Location
31 3.8 34:1 6:1 Levee Berm 5 230 ft along the extended
runway centerline
13 3.5 20:1 12:1 Levee Berm 8 300 ft along the extended
runway centerline
The FAA establishes Runway Protection Zones off each runway end to enhance the safety of aircraft
operations and the protection of people and property on the ground. The following defines the size of the
Runway Protection Zones for each runway.
Runway No. Protection Zone Length (feet) Inner Width (feet) Outer Width (feet)
31 Nonprecision 1,000 250 450
13 Visual 1,000 250 450
The FAA requires that the airport sponsor have adequate property interest in the Runway Protection Zones
(RPZs) as a condition of receiving certain grants. Most of the Runway Protection Zones for Runway 31 and
Runway 13 are outside the Airport boundary but are on state and county owned wetlands.
Access to the Airport is from Embarcadero Road on the west side of the Airport, off of U. S. Highway 101.
There are two entrance areas to the airfield, one is through the FBO area on the southwest side of the
airport and the other is through the County Administration area on the east side of the airport. The aircraft
basing areas are located on the south side of the Airport. There are 468 aircraft tiedown spaces, 22
transient tiedown spaces and 85 hangars at the Airport. Airport facilities include a rotating beacon, a
lighted windsock and a segmented circle.
2-4
2.2.2 Future Airport Facilities
Any change to the airport facilities would have to be approved by the City of Palo Alto. The current
Airport Master Plan (AMP) identifies a potential increase of 29 aircraft hangars, which would result in an
additional 40 aircraft based at the Airport. The AMP also recommends a new, relocated Helipad, an
aircraft wash rack, a replacement General Aviation Terminal building and parking lot, reconfiguration of
Taxiway G and relocated tiedowns.
2.3 AVIATION ACTIVITY
The noise impact of an airport is a direct result of the number of aircraft operations at that airport and the
types of those aircraft. Given this information, and some other factors such as flight tracks and the
distribution of flight operations throughout the day and night, computer models can generate a
representation of the noise contours around an airport. The generalized flight tracks for the airport are
shown in Figure 3. The noise contours created by the computer model reflect the data provided to the
program. Thus the activity data, both current and forecasted, needs to be as accurate as possible.
The aviation activity data is taken from the November 2002 draft of the Airport Roles and Forecasts,
Chapter 2 of the County Airports Master Plan (AMP) adopted by the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors on November 19, 2002 and the HMMH Palo Alto Airport Noise Contour report dated February
24, 2006. The Noise Contour Report gives aircraft activity percentages and the AMP provides forecasts of
aircraft operations at the Airport through the year 2022.
As the CLUP is a 20-year planning document, the existing base year (2001) aviation activity was reviewed
and updated aviation activity forecasts were prepared through the year 2022. A summary of the existing
and forecast aviation activity is presented in Table 2-1 and discussed in the following paragraphs.
2.3.1 Based Aircraft
The AMP forecasts that the number of based aircraft at Palo Alto will increase from 524 in 2001 to 613 by
2022 as shown in Table 2-1. The growth in forecast-based aircraft at the Airport is due in large part to the
potential increase in tie downs and hangars planned for the Airport. The mix of aircraft based at the airport
is not forecast to change appreciably through 2022.
2.3.2 Aircraft Operations
The number of annual aircraft operations at Palo Alto Airport, as presented in Table 2-1, is forecast to
increase from an estimated 212,626 operations in the year 2002 to 227,509 operations by the year 2022.
These data are taken from the recent Palo Alto Airport Master Plan. The AMP indicates that the mix of
operations at the airport is not forecast to change appreciably through 2022.
2.3.2.1 General Aviation
Since no commercial passenger (air carrier) operations are forecast for the planning period, general aviation
will continue to account for all of the operations at the Airport, increasing from an estimated 212,626
annual operations in 2002 to 227,509 annual operations by 2022.
Local Operations. Local operations are performed by aircraft operating in the local traffic pattern and
aircraft departing for, or arriving from, local practice areas. These operations include training operations
by both aircraft based at the Airport and aircraft from other airports in nearby counties. The local
operations include flight training, the activities of based aircraft pilots maintaining their landing skills and
activities of itinerant aircraft pilots who come to practice landing at a different airport.
Local operations are forecast to remain at about 60 percent of total general aviation aircraft operations over
the forecast period and will continue to account for the larger number of general aviation operations at the
airport.
2-5
--"-----"-----",--
Runway 13 Typical Flight Paths
Figure 3b /
Ta
b
l
e
2
-
1
UP
D
A
T
E
D
A
V
I
A
T
I
O
N
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
F
O
R
E
C
A
S
T
S
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
20
0
1
–
2
0
2
2
Ba
s
e
Ye
a
r
Fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
20
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
7
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
7
2
0
2
2
GE
N
E
R
A
L
A
V
I
A
T
I
O
N
B
A
S
E
D
A
I
R
C
R
A
F
T
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
e
n
g
i
n
e
–
p
i
s
t
o
n
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
e
n
g
i
n
e
–
t
u
r
b
i
n
e
M
u
l
t
i
-
e
n
g
i
n
e
–
p
i
s
t
o
n
M
u
l
t
i
-
e
n
g
i
n
e
–
t
u
r
b
i
n
e
H
e
l
i
c
o
p
t
e
r
O
t
h
e
r
(
F
a
n
j
e
t
,
q
u
i
e
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
S
t
a
g
e
3
)
To
t
a
l
b
a
s
e
d
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
48
8
3
2
7
2
4
0
52
4
4
8
8
3
27 2
4
0
5
2
4
5
0
8
5
31 3
6
0
5
5
3
5
1
9
6
33
3
6
0
5
6
6
5
2
5
7
36 5
7
0
5
7
9
5
5
1
8
40 7
7
0
6
1
3
AI
R
C
R
A
F
T
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
A
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
-
I
t
i
n
e
r
a
n
t
-
L
o
c
a
l
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
–
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
A
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
i
r
T
a
x
i
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
H
e
l
i
c
o
p
t
e
r
To
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
7
4
,
5
3
9
_1
3
5
,
2
1
6
2
0
9
,
7
5
5
8
0
37
0
26
0
2
1
0
,
4
6
5
8
6
,
4
0
4
12
5
,
9
6
0
2
1
2
,
3
6
4
1
1
1
26
0
21
2
,
6
2
6
8
7
,
2
3
9
12
8
,
8
0
5
2
1
6
,
0
4
4
20
0
5
26
0
2
1
6
,
5
0
9
9
0
,
0
4
0
13
0
,
2
0
0
22
0
,
2
4
0
50
0
0
2
6
0
22
1
,
0
0
0
9
0
,
6
9
4
13
1
,
6
0
7
2
2
2
,
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
2
2
3
,
5
6
1
9
0
,
9
9
0
13
4
,
7
5
9
2
2
5
,
7
4
9
1
5
0
0
0
26
0
2
2
7
,
5
0
9
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
P
E
R
B
A
S
E
D
A
I
R
C
R
A
F
T
40
2
4
0
6
3
9
2
3
9
0
3
8
6
3
7
1
So
u
r
c
e
:
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
,
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
R
o
l
e
s
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
,
H
M
M
H
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
N
o
i
s
e
C
o
n
t
o
u
r
r
e
p
o
r
t
an
d
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
2-
8
2-9
Itinerant Operations. Itinerant operations are conducted by aircraft that takeoff from one airport and land
at another airport, or the reverse. They include the operations of aircraft based at the Airport and flights of
other aircraft to and from the Airport. The itinerant operations at the Airport include aircraft based on the
airport used for personal business, recreational activities and “Angel Flights” for medical services.
Itinerant operations are forecast to remain at about 40 percent of total general aviation aircraft operations
over the forecast period and will continue to account for the smaller number of aircraft operations at the
airport.
2.3.2.2 Air Taxi
In 2001 there were 80 Air Taxi operations at the Airport. In 2002 there were 11 Air Taxi operations. In
2006 there were nearly 1600. Air taxi operations include the unscheduled "for hire" operations carrying
passengers and cargo to and from the area including any operations by bank couriers or other small package
carriers. Based on discussions with persons knowledgeable of the Airport and its activities, Air Taxi
operations are forecast to increase to 1500 annual operations in the year 2022.
2.3.2.3 Military
Based on discussions with persons knowledgeable of the Airport and its activities, there were no military
operations in 2001. The current runway is not suitable for fixed-wing military aircraft. Current military
aircraft require runways of greater length than those at the Airport.
Military helicopter operations are not expected to contribute in a significant manner to the number of
annual airport operations through 2022.
2.3.2.4 Helicopter
In past years, there were a number of helicopter operations, mostly associated with medivac of patients
destine for Stanford Hospital. Stanford Hospital now has its own helipad and the number of helicopter
operations has dropped from prior years to refueling stops only. The number of helicopter operations is
estimated to be 260 per year and is included in the airport noise calculations.
2.4 AIRPORT ENVIRONS
Figure 4 presents the land use designations within the Airport environs based on the current Santa Clara
County 2002 General Plan. The City of Palo Alto is adjacent to and southwest of the Airport and the City
of East Palo Alto, located in San Mateo County lies to the northwest of the Airport. The predominant land
uses in the Airport environs are wetlands, bay waters, golf driving range, commercial and limited
residential.
General Plan 0 1.0002.000 '.000 • It:._ --. --Land Use / ~. . --------------Figure 4 -----.----~--.--_ ... ----,_ .. --'l::;I,. ~:;;:.""" .:.:.. .. ~':'".-
3-1
Section 3
3 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
3.1 OVERVIEW
Land use compatibility policies and standards are based on community values, sound technical knowledge,
and acceptable analytical methods. These policies and compatibility criteria form the basis for evaluating
existing land use compatibility and provide the foundation for the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) policies. These standards focus on the three areas of ALUC responsibility including
aircraft noise, the control of objects in navigable airspace, and the safety of persons on the ground and in
aircraft. These compatibility criteria are contained in relevant State and Federal statutes and regulations
and are discussed in this section.
Federal, State and other local agencies have developed and published guidelines for airport land use
compatibility planning. Unfortunately, no civilian or military authority has established regulations or
statutes that specify a single methodology for mitigating the incompatibilities between an airport and its
environs, nor have such incompatibilities been adequately defined. The enabling legislation for the Santa
Clara County Airport Land Use Commission offers some guidance while directing the Commission to
provide for the orderly growth of the airports and the areas surrounding the airports, and to safeguard the
general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airports and the public in general. The
legislation further enables the Commission to develop height restrictions on structures, to specify the use of
land, to determine building standards, including noise insulation, and to assist local agencies in ensuring
compatible land uses in the vicinity of the airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of the airports is
not already devoted to incompatible uses. The Commission is also empowered to coordinate planning at
the State, regional and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while
at the same time protecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
3.2 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
The principal source for airport land use compatibility planning is the January 2002 California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook (2002 Handbook) published by the California Department of Transportation,
Division of Aeronautics (Caltrans). The 2002 Handbook provides guidelines for formulating compatibility
criteria and policies for preparing Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs). Noise and safety compatibility
concepts and issues are presented, and copies of relevant legislation and examples of mitigation measures,
such as model noise and avigation easements are included. The 2002 Handbook is available for review at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/htmlfile/landuse.html and at the Santa Clara County Planning
Department office. Note that a local agency is not precluded from establishing land use policies and
guidelines that are more restrictive than those described in this CLUP.
3.3 NOISE RESTRICTION AREA
Airport noise affects many communities. At certain levels, airport noise can interfere with sleep,
conversation, or relaxation. It also may disrupt school and work activities. At even higher levels, airport
noise may make outdoor activities impossible and may begin to raise health concerns with respect to
hearing loss and stress-related problems. However, hearing damage from airport noise may not be a
problem for nearby neighbors because noise levels are simply not of sufficient intensity to cause such
damage. An exception to this is the exposure a ground crew member receives during the handling of a jet
aircraft. Similarly, medical studies are inconclusive on a cause-and-effect relationship for non-auditory
health concerns near airport. A more general conclusion is that noise may have an additive effect for some
people with anxieties, ulcers, and tension illness.
The amount of annoyance that aircraft noise creates among people living and working in the vicinity of an
airport varies on an individual basis. Studies show that a certain percentage of people will continue to be
annoyed by aircraft noise at any given noise level, regardless of how low that aircraft noise level may be.
All levels of government share responsibility for addressing the airport noise issue. The Federal
government establishes noise standards for aircraft as published in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
Part 36, Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification, and conducts research on noise
3-2
abatement techniques and noise compatibility. The preparation of a special airport noise study under the
provisions of FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, provides technical assistance to the
airport operator in planning and implementing a noise compatibility program. The State of California also
prescribes noise standards for all airports as defined in Title 21, Airport Noise Standards, of the California
Code of Regulations, and sets noise insulation standards for residential structures as defined in Title 24,
California Building Standards Code, of the California Building Standards Commission. The airport
operator may develop airport noise control programs and enact operational restrictions to control and
reduce noise levels in the community. Finally, local governments have the responsibility to limit the
exposure of the population to excessive airport noise levels through the land use planning and zoning
process.
3.3.1 Airport Noise Descriptors
To adequately address the airport noise issue, local governments need a standard way to measure and
describe airport noise and establish land use compatibility guidelines. The County of Santa Clara has
identified DNL and CNEL as being equivalent measures of noise. Relative to aviation, it is common to use
the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for determining land use compatibility in the community
environment.
The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor is a method of averaging single-event noise
levels over a typical 24-hour day and applying penalties to noise events occurring during the evening (7
p.m. to 10 p.m.) and night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) hours. CNEL is usually defined in terms of average annual
conditions, so that the CNEL measured on a given day may be either less than or greater than the annual
average.
The State of California uses the CNEL descriptor to describe land use compatibility with respect to aircraft
noise exposures. CNEL is the noise descriptor standard defined in Title 21 of the California Code of
Regulations, Airport Noise Standards, and the standard specified for evaluation of exterior and interior
noise impacts in Title 24 of the California Building Standards Commission, California Building Standards
Code. The CNEL is identified as one of two noise descriptors used in the preparation of a noise element of
a general plan according to guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control, California Department of
Health Services (now documented as General Plan Guidelines,Appendix A).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recognizes the CNEL as essentially equivalent to the Yearly
Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL), which is the basis for FAA recommendations for land use
compatibility with respect to aircraft noise described in FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning.
The decibel (dB) is the unit of measurement for the magnitude of a sound. A decibel is equal to the
logarithm of the ratio of the intensity of the sound to the intensity of an arbitrarily chosen standard sound,
specifically a sound just barely audible to an unimpaired human ear (e.g., 55, 60, 65, 70 and 75 dB).
3.3.2 Land Use Compatibility Standards – California
Land use compatibility guidelines for airport noise are included in the 2002 Handbook. Amendments to the
law enacted in October 1994 mandate the use of these guidelines in the preparation of airport land use
plans. These guidelines were originally developed in 1983 after considering State Office of Noise Control
(ONC), FAA, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines together with a
review of available airport land use plans. Existing Federal and State laws were reviewed as part of the
updated 2002 Handbook. The State ONC criteria established the 55 dB CNEL as a residential threshold
value to distinguish normally acceptable from conditionally acceptable situations.
The Caltrans guidelines for land use compatibility standards extend below the Federal 65 dB CNEL, as the
Federal threshold does not sufficiently explain the annoyance area surrounding general aviation airports.
The frequency of operations from some airports, visibility of aircraft at low altitudes and typically lower
background noise levels around many general aviation airports are all believed to create a heightened
awareness of general aviation activity and potential for annoyance outside of the 65 dB CNEL contour.
3-3
At and above the 60 dB CNEL level, the California Building Code, Section 1208A.8.3 requires an
acoustical analysis of proposed residential structures, other than detached single-family dwellings, to
achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dB CNEL.
The noise attenuating properties of existing types of construction were considered in setting state standards.
Typical wood frame construction with drywall interiors provides noise reduction of between 15 and 20 dB.
Thus, residential units exposed to outdoors noise in the range between 60 and 65 dB CNEL can be
attenuated to achieve the 45 dB CNEL level indoors when built using normal standards of construction.
The 2002 Handbook (see Appendix B herein) urges ALUCs to be conservative when establishing noise
contours.
3.3.3 Land Use Compatibility Standards - Santa Clara County
In the Noise Element of the 1994 Santa Clara County General Plan, the County identified 55 dB DNL as
the normally acceptable standard for residential uses. Above 55 dB DNL, residential uses are conditionally
acceptable, however the noise exposure is great enough to be of some concern.
3.3.4 Land Use Compatibility Standards – City of Palo Alto
In the Natural Environment element of the 1998 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the City specifies a
maximum interior noise level limit of 45 dB Ldn (equilivent to CNEL) and 50 dB SENL for single family
residences and multiple family dwellings, and a maximum exterior noise level guideline of 60 Ldn for
residences, hotels, motels, schools, libraries, museums, hospitals, meeting halls, personal care, and
churches. Specified land uses in areas above these exterior noise levels are permitted after an acoustical
analysis of the amount of attenuation necessary to maintain an indoor level of Ldn <=45 dB. Outdoor areas
intended for residential recreational use with a noise level above 60 dB LDN are required to reduce noise
levels as close to 60 dB Ldn as feasable through project design.
3.3.5 Palo Alto Airport Noise Contours
An analysis of annual aircraft operations and related noise levels for Palo Alto Airport was made to prepare
CNEL noise exposure maps for this CLUP using current and forecast aircraft operations based on the
existing runway configuration. The ALUC has elected to adopt the most conservative (largest) contours
from this study for the purposes of this CLUP.
The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 6.1 was used to
prepare CNEL noise exposure maps based on the FAA aircraft noise level database and airport operational
factors described below. The INM software was developed by the FAA and represents the Federally
sanctioned and preferred method for analyzing aircraft noise exposure.
3.3.6 Aircraft Operations
Aircraft operational factors that can significantly affect overall noise levels as described by CNEL include
the aircraft fleet mix, the number of daily operations and the time of day when aircraft operations occur.
Runway use factors also significantly influence CNEL values. Trip length can affect aircraft single-event
noise levels. An aircraft that is making a local flight may carry less fuel and fewer passengers than that for
a long flight and therefore make less noise on departure. The INM software applies corrections to air
carrier aircraft takeoff profiles to account for these differences, but makes no corrections to general aviation
aircraft takeoff profiles.
Aircraft operational assumptions for the Airport were based upon analyses of airport activity provided by
the FAA tower and Airport Management. These assumptions are summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2.
Twin-engine turbine powered business aircraft are represented by the INM CNA441; twin-engine piston
aircraft are represented by the INM BEC58P designation. Single-engine turbine powered aircraft are
represented by the INM CNA206 and CNA20T designations. The high-performance single-engine
propeller aircraft such as the Cessna 210 are represented by the INM GASEPV designation and standard
single-engine propeller aircraft are represented by the INM GASEPF and CNA172 designations.
Helicopters are represented by the INM B222 designation and are included in the noise calculations.
3-4
Table 3 - 1
AIRPORT CONFIGURATION AND RUNWAY USE
Palo Alto Airport
2022
Airport Configuration
Runway Configuration:
Field Elevation: (Runway High Point)
Runway Use:
31-13
4 feet MSL
Runway 31 – 90%
Runway 13 – 10%
Temporal Distribution of Runway Operations
Percentage of Use
Aircraft Class
Day
7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Evening
7 p.m. To 10 p.m.
Night
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Takeoff and Landing
Fixed Wing Aircraft, All 82.5% 15% 2.5%
Helicopter 75.0% 20% 5.0%
Source: HMMH Palo Alto Airport Noise Contour report and Airport Management
3-5
Table 3 - 2
ANNUAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Palo Alto Airport
2022
Generalized Aircraft Type Year 2022
Twin-Engine Turboprop (CNA441) 3,562
Twin-Engine Piston (BEC58P) 18,522
Single-Engine, Business Turboprop (CNA20T) 4,987
Single-Engine, Turboprop (CNA206) 45,592
Single-Engine Piston, High Performance (GASEPV) 45,592
Single-Engine Piston, Standard (CNA172) 39,181
Single-Engine Piston, Trainer (GASEPF) 69,813
Helicopters (B222) 260
Gliders 0
Total 227,509
3-6
Descriptions of aircraft flight tracks were developed for use in the INM through discussions with Airport
Management and review of the assumptions used for previous descriptions of aircraft operations at the
Airport. Based on these data, generalized flight tracks were prepared for use in the noise modeling process
to describe areas with a concentration of aircraft overflights. It is recognized that variations in flight paths
occur at the Airport and that the tracks used for this analysis are a general representation of those flight
tracks.
3.3.6.1 CNEL Noise Exposure Contours
The Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 6.1 was used to prepare CNEL noise exposure contours for the
Airport based on the aircraft noise level and operational factors described in the previous sections.
User inputs to the INM include the following:
xAirport altitude and mean temperature
xRunway configuration
xAircraft flight track definition
xAircraft stage length (not applicable to Palo Alto Airport)
xAircraft departure and approach profiles
xAircraft traffic volume and fleet mix
xFlight track utilization by aircraft types
The INM database includes aircraft performance parameters and noise level data for numerous commercial,
military and general aviation aircraft classes. When the user specifies a particular aircraft class from the
INM database, the model automatically provides the necessary inputs concerning aircraft power settings,
speed, departure profile, and noise levels. INM default values were used for all fixed-wing aircraft types.
After the model had been prepared for the various aircraft classes, INM input files were created containing
the number of operations by aircraft class, time of day and flight track for annual average day aircraft
operations and future operations.
From these data, the INM produces lines of equal noise levels, i.e. noise contours. The location of these
noise contours become less precise with distance from the runway since aircraft do not follow each flight
track exactly as defined in the model. However, they are accurate enough to indicate general areas of likely
community response to noise generated by aircraft activity and serve as the basis for land use compatibility
determinations.
3.3.7 Impacts on Land Use
The 60, 65, 70 and 75 dB CNEL noise contours based on the forecast aircraft operations are illustrated on
Figure 5 and discussed below.
3.3.7.1 75 dB CNEL Noise Level
The 75 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour is completely contained within the Airport boundaries.
3.3.7.2 70 dB CNEL Noise Level
The 70 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour is generally contained within the Airport boundaries except for the
northwest end of the airport, where it extends about 1900 feet beyond the airport boundary on the extended
runway centerline over into the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve in San Mateo County.
3.3.7.3 65 dB CNEL Noise Level
The 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour extends beyond the airport boundaries in all directions but is over
the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, and the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve in San Mateo County.
Noise Contours (CNEL)
55 Cleo c::J 65 CJ 70
2022 Aircraft Noise Contours 0 1, /. Figure 5 _____ . ______ _
---~ --_ .. _-_.-_-_"' __ J~_
3-8
3.3.7.4 60 dB CNEL Noise Level
The 60 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour extends beyond the airport boundaries in all directions and is over
the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve and the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, except for a portion to
the west and northwest that extends about 500 feet west of the Grant Boundary and out along the extended
runway center line to about 2300 feet northwest of Bay Road in East Palo Alto in San Mateo County.
3.4 HEIGHT RESTRICTION AREA
Airport vicinity height limitations are required to protect the public safety, health, and welfare by ensuring
that aircraft can safely fly in the airspace around an airport. This protects both those in the aircraft and
those on the ground who could be injured in the event of an accident. In addition, height limitations are
required to protect the operational capability of airports, thus preserving an important part of National and
State aviation transportation systems.
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, establishes imaginary
surfaces for airports and runways as a means to identify objects that are obstructions to air navigation.
Each surface is defined as a slope ratio or at a certain altitude above the airport elevation.
FAA uses FAR Part 77 obstructions standards as elevations above which structures may constitute a safety
problem. Any penetrations of the FAR Part 77 surface are subject to review on a case-by-case basis. If a
safety problem is found to exist, FAA may issue a determination of a hazard to air navigation. FAA does
not have the authority to prevent the encroachment, however California law can prevent the encroachment
if the FAA has made a determination of a hazard to air navigation. The local jurisdiction can establish and
enforce height restrictions.
The dimensions of the imaginary surfaces vary depending on the type of approach to a particular runway as
illustrated on Figure 6 for the Airport based on the ultimate dimensions shown on the Airport Layout Plan.
Nonprecision Instrument-Approach runways generally have larger surfaces and flatter approach slopes than
visual runways. Table 3-3 tabulates the imaginary surfaces described below.
3.4.1 Primary Surface
A surface longitudinally centered along a runway, and extending 200 feet beyond the end of each
instrument runway. For Runway 31-13 the width is 500 feet and the primary surface extends 200 feet
beyond the ends of the runway.
3.4.2 Approach Surface
A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline, extending outward and upward from
each end of the primary surface. An Approach Surface is applied to each end of each runway based upon
the type of approach available or planned for that runway end. The inner edge of the Approach Surface is
the same width as the Primary Surface and it extends for a length of 5000 feet at a slope of 20:1. Runway
31 Approach Surface has a width of 2000 feet at the outer end and Runway 13 Approach Surface has a
width of 1250 feet at the outer end.
3.4.3 Transitional Surface
A surface extending outward and upward from the sides of the Primary Surface and from the sides of the
Approach Surfaces at a slope of 7 to 1.
3.4.4 Horizontal Surface
A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation (the highest point of an airport's usable
landing area measured in feet above mean sea level), the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging
arcs 5,000 feet out for Runway 31-13, from the center of each end of the Primary Surface of each runway
and connecting the arcs with tangent lines.
Holgh' R .... ~Ian. IF ___ ' s ........ oI)
_'_:0 -.-'" • m _""_JI:>O ... -,,.-... -...
FAR Part 77 Surfaces
Fig ure 6 /
3-10
Table 3 - 3
FAR PART 77 DIMENSIONS
Palo Alto Airport
Runway____________________________
31_____ 13_____
Runway Type Nonprecision Visual
Primary Surface
Length (feet) 2,843 2,843
Width (feet) 500 500
Approach Surface
Slope 20:1 20:1
Length (feet) 5,000 5,000
Inner Width 500 500
Outer Width 2,000 1,250
Transitional Surface
Slope 7:1 7:1
Horizontal Surface
End Radius (feet) 5,000 5,000
Elevation (feet MSL) 154 154
Conical Surface
Slope 20:1 20:1
Width (feet) 4,000 4,000
__________________________________
Source: Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77
3-11
3.4.5 Conical Surface
A surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the Horizontal Surface at a slope of 20 to 1
for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.
3.4.6 Summary
Where imaginary surfaces overlap, such as in the case where the Approach Surface penetrates and
continues upward and outward from the Horizontal Surface, the lowest surface is used to determine
whether or not an object would be an obstruction to air navigation.
Any proposed new construction or expansion of existing structures that would penetrate any of the FAR
Part 77 imaginary surfaces of the Airport is considered an incompatible land use, unless either the FAA has
determined that the proposed structure does not constitute a hazard to air navigation or the Caltrans
Aeronautics Program has issued a permit allowing construction of the proposed structure. The FAA has
established minimum standards for the determination of hazards or obstructions to aviation. The FAA
permits local agencies such as the ALUC to establish more restrictive criteria for determining if the height
of a structure creates a safety hazard to aircraft operations. A determination by the FAA or Caltrans that a
project does not constitute a hazard to air navigation does not limit the ALUC from determining that a
project may be inconsistent under the policies of this CLUP.
3.5 SAFETY RESTRICTION AREA
Safety of people on the ground and in the air and the protection of property from airport-related hazards are
among the responsibilities of the Airport Land Use Commission. The 2002 Handbook presents guidelines
for the establishment of airport safety areas in addition to those established by the FAA.
Airport safety zones are established to minimize the number of people exposed to potential aircraft
accidents in the vicinity of the Airport by imposing density and use limitations within these zones. Figure 7
illustrates the airport safety zones for Runway 31-13 at the Airport. The safety zones are related to runway
length and expected use. The safety zones shown on Figure 7 are based on a runway length of 2443 feet.
Aircraft flight tracks are shown on Figure 3. Safety zones shown in San Mateo County are reference only.
In addition, the survivability of aircraft occupants in the event of an emergency landing has been shown to
increase significantly if the aircraft is able to reach the ground under control of the pilot. As a result, open
area requirements are established for the safety zones in addition to density and use requirements.
Exposure to potential aircraft accidents diminishes with distance from the airport runways. The safety
zones shown below are in descending order of exposure to potential aircraft accidents, with the Runway
Protection Zone (RPZ) having the highest exposure followed by the Inner Safety Zone (ISZ), Turning
Safety Zone (TSZ), Outer Safety Zone (OSZ) and Sideline Safety Zone (SSZ), with the Traffic Pattern
Zone (TPZ) having the lowest level of exposure.
At airports with displaced runway thresholds, a choice exists to use either the runway threshold (end of
pavement) or the displaced threshold to determine the location of the safety zones. This CLUP uses the
threshold adopted by the Airport and the FAA for positioning the FAA RPZs, as depicted on the FAA
approved Airport Layout Plan, as the basis for positioning the ALUC safety zones. At this airport both
RPZs are based on the displaced thresholds and thus the ALUC safety zones are positioned accordingly.
The safety zones defined for the Airport are based on the 2002 Handbook guidelines for an airport having a
general aviation runway less than 4,000 feet in length. Symmetrical turning zones were used due to some
air traffic operating in a traffic pattern on the west side of the airport
Safety zones are exclusive in their coverage, and do not overlay each other. Thus land in the RPZ is only in
the RPZ, and is not also in the ISZ or TSZ. The order of precedence is, from highest to lowest: RPZ, ISZ,
TSZ, OSZ, SSZ and TPZ. If a development project spans more than one safety zone, each part of the
project must meet the requirements for the safety zone in which the land for that portion of the project is
located. Thus a single building that extends over two safety zones may have differing height and density-
of-use requirements for the two parts of the same physical structure. The following safety zones apply to
Palo Alto Airport based on guidelines provided in the 2002 Handbook:
----_ ... ----... _--""' ... _----------........ _--... ---.----------.
Airport Safety Zones
Figure 7 -/
-----.----~-------_ .. _,-_.-r .... __ ... __ ,~_
3-13
3.5.1 Runway Protection Zone
The function of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) is to enhance the protection of people and property on
the ground and aircraft occupants. RPZs should be clear of all objects, structures and activities. At this
airport the RPZ as adopted by the airport and the FAA, begins 200 feet out from the runway thresholds. It
is a trapezoidal area centered on the extended runway centerline. The size is related to the expected aircraft
use and the visibility minimums for that particular runway.
xRunway 31-13: The RPZ for Runway 31 is non-standard but FAA approved at 1,000 feet long, with
an inner width of 250 feet and an outer width of 450 feet. The RPZ for Runway 13 is 1,000 feet long,
with an inner width of 250 feet and an outer width of 450 feet.
3.5.2 Turning Sector Defined
Some of the safety zones are bounded by a geometric feature defined as a “Turning Sector”. This feature is
constructed as follows:
Each runway end has a sector. The radius of these sectors is 3000 ft with the center point located 1000 ft
along the runway centerline from the runway threshold towards the opposite end of the runway. The arc
for the sector is swung centered on the extended runway centerline. The interior angle of the sector is 30
degrees on each side of the extended runway centerline, or 60 degrees wide.
The Turning Sector is defined as the outside bounds of the feature constructed above. There is one Turning
Sector for each end of the runway system.
3.5.3 Inner Safety Zone
The Inner Safety Zone (ISZ) is located within the Turning Sector boundary described above. The ISZ
represents the approach and departure corridors that have the second highest level of exposure to potential
aircraft accidents. The ISZ is centered on the runway centerline starting at the apex of the Turning Sector
boundary and extends to the outer arc of the Turning Sector boundary. The length of the runway
determines the dimensions.
xThe ISZ for Runway 31 and 13 is an area 1,000 feet wide, centered between the runways and contained
within the Turning Sector.
xThe Inner Safety Zone excludes the RPZ and the Primary Surface.
3.5.4 Turning Safety Zone
The Turning Safety Zone (TSZ) represents the approach and departure areas that have the third highest
level of exposure to potential aircraft accidents. The Turning Safety Zones are defined below.
xThe TSZs for Runways 31 and 13 are the four areas within the Turning Sectors outside of the ISZ.
xThe Turning Safety Zone areas do not include the RPZ or the ISZ.
3.5.5 Outer Safety Zone
The Outer Safety Zone (OSZ) is an area centered on the extended runway centerline starting at the outer
end of the Turning Safety Zone (TSZ) and extending away from the runway end. The length of the runway
determines the dimensions.
xThe OSZ for each end of the runways is a rectangular area 1000 feet wide and 1500 feet long centered
on the extended runway centerline, starting at the outer edge of the TSZ and extending away from the
runway threshold.
3-14
3.5.6 Sideline Safety Zone
The Sideline Safety Zone (SSZ) is an area along side and parallel to the runway. Aircraft do not normally
overfly this area, except aircraft losing directional control on takeoff (especially twin-engine aircraft).
xThe SSZ for Runway 31-13 is 1000 feet wide centered on the runway centerline and extending along
the runway to intercept the Turning Sector boundaries.
3.5.7 Traffic Pattern Zone
The Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) is that portion of the airport area routinely overflown by aircraft operating
in the airport traffic pattern. The potential for aircraft accidents is relatively low and the need for land use
restrictions is minimal. The TPZ excludes all other zones described above.
xThe perimeter of the TPZ is constructed by swinging arcs of 5,000-foot radius for Runways 31 and 13
from a point 200 feet out from the runway pavement end on the extended centerline and connecting the
arcs with a line tangent to these arcs.
3.6 OVERFLIGHT RESTRICTION AREA
All areas within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) should be regarded as potentially subject to aircraft
overflights. Although sensitivity to aircraft overflights will vary from one person to another, overflight
sensitivity is particularly important within residential land uses and certain agricultural uses (open-air
turkey farming, etc.).
3.7 AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA
The Airport Influence Area (AIA) is a composite of the areas surrounding the Airport that are affected by
noise, height, and safety considerations. The AIA is defined as a feature-based boundary around the
Airport within which all development projects must be evaluated by local agencies to determine how the
Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan may impact the proposed development. This evaluation is to
determine that the development meets the conditions specified for height restrictions, and noise and safety
protection to the public. [A.B. 332 (Stats. 2003) to be codified in Public Utilities Code 21674.7 (b)].
The Airport Influence Area (Figure 8) is defined as that portion of Palo Alto east of the Bayshore Freeway
bounded by U.S. Highway 101 to San Francisquito Creek along the Palo Alto City boundary to Charleston
Slough to Barron Creek back to U.S. Highway 101. In addition, for structures (including antennae) with a
height of 500 feet or greater above ground level, the AIA is defined as the entire county.
The compatibility of land uses within the AIA should be preserved to the maximum extent feasible with
particular emphasis on the preservation of existing agricultural and open space uses. The conversion of
land from existing or planned agricultural, industrial, or commercial use to residential uses should be the
subject of careful consideration of the potential impacts of aircraft overflights.
.-.".. ' .. -:~~-" -, ---u_ -----* -..... .-
=::::...-~:-__ AlA e _·... . " ___ " __ _ M_ With Zoning / --'-'" Figure 8 ---------~---------"-'--~-.-._-_._._.-
4-1
Section 4
4 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY POLICIES
4.1 LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES
The land use planning criteria for the individual land use planning issues applicable to the Airport are
discussed in Section 3.0. Figure 8 presents a composite of the land use planning categories and the criteria
that establishes the Airport Influence Area (AIA). The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Airport address policies based on the
following criteria:
xNoise Restriction Area. The Noise Restriction Area is defined as the 60 dB CNEL contour, inside
which an acoustical analysis is required by the local agency with land use jurisdiction demonstrating
how low-density, single-family, duplex and mobile home dwelling units have been designed to meet an
interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL.
xHeight Restriction Area. The Height Restriction Area is to protect the airspace around the Airport.
The Horizontal Surface is 150 feet above the Airport elevations, the perimeter of which is constructed
by swinging arcs out from the ends of the Primary Surface. The radius of the arc is 5,000 feet for this
airport. The Conical Surface extends outward and upward from the periphery of the Horizontal
Surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. The Height Restriction Area is
defined as the Approach Surfaces plus the Transitional Surfaces plus the Horizontal Surface plus the
Conical Surface.
xSafety Restriction Area. The Safety Restriction Area is to provide land use safety with respect to
people and property on the ground and the occupants of aircraft. The safety zones applicable to the
Airport are defined in Section 3.5 and presented on Figure 7.
xOverflight Restriction Area. The Overflight Restriction Area is a composite of the areas surrounding
the Airport that are areas affected by noise, height, and safety considerations. All areas within the AIA
(Figure 8) should be regarded as potentially subject to aircraft overflights as discussed in Section 3.6.
4.2 JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The policies set forth in this section contain criteria intended to prevent future conflicts between airport
operations and surrounding land uses. Implementation of these criteria requires action by the local
jurisdictions that have control over the land uses in the Airport Influence Area (AIA) presented on Figure 8.
The jurisdictional responsibilities for implementation of the CLUP are described below. In addition,
actions that are available to the local jurisdictions are also presented.
Implementation of the CLUP will be the responsibility of the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo
Alto for those areas within the AIA under their respective jurisdiction. Note that Policies T-1 and T-2
extend countywide. The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) will provide policy
direction, advice, and technical assistance to the County and the City of Palo Alto as needed to facilitate
implementation of the CLUP.
4.2.1 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission
The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission shall:
xAdopt the airport land use policies and the AIA boundary maps. The CLUP and its planning boundary
maps shall, upon adoption, be subject to annual review by the ALUC and be updated as required.
Amendments to the CLUP document are limited to no more than once per calendar year.
4-2
xReview the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans for the County of Santa Clara and the City of
Palo Alto to determine if such plans and regulations are consistent with the policies of this CLUP.
Until the ALUC has determined that the General Plans and Specific Plans of the County and city are
consistent, or until the County or associated city has overridden the ALUC's determination, all
discretionary permits within the AIA shall be referred to the ALUC for a consistency determination.
xReview all proposed amendments to the General Plans, Specific Plans, and zoning and building
regulations that may affect land use in the AIA.
The ALUC shall determine if the proposed amendments are consistent or inconsistent with this CLUP.
xReview proposed changes to the Airport Master Plan or Airport Layout Plan or modifications to the
aircraft flight tracks, new aircraft noise contours, or any other development that would alter the land
use compatibility issues addressed in Section 3.0.
The ALUC shall determine if the proposed changes are consistent with this CLUP or if the CLUP
requires an amendment.
xConsider and comment on local government decisions relating to proposed land use where there is a
conflict with ALUC plans and policies. A review of land use issues within the AIA relating to ALUC
policies may be requested by any member of the ALUC, or by the owner/operator of the Airport.
xCoordinate off-airport land use planning efforts of the cities within the county, the County of Santa
Clara and Federal and State agencies concerned with airport land use.
xGather and disseminate information relating to airport land use and aircraft noise, height and safety
factors that may affect land use.
4.2.1.1 Review of Development Projects
Once the ALUC has determined that a local jurisdiction's General Plan and applicable Specific Plans are
consistent with the CLUP (or the local jurisdiction has overruled the ALUC and made the required findings
of consistency with the purposes stated in Public Utilities Code section 21670), to the extent that these are
not mandated referrals the ALUC encourages the local jurisdictions to submit referrals to the ALUC for the
following proposed developments:
xAny project that requires use of the Infill policies or Reconstruction policy R-3 in order to be deemed
consistent with this CLUP.
xProposed residential development, including land divisions, consisting of five or more dwelling units
or parcels within the AIA.
xMajor infrastructure development or improvements (e.g., water, sewer, roads) that would promote
urban development within the AIA.
xProposed land acquisition by any entity for the purpose of developing a school, hospital, nursing home,
library, outdoor theater, or other high-density or low-mobility uses within the AIA.
xAny proposal anywhere in the County for construction or alteration of a structure (including antennas)
higher than 200 feet above ground level, to verify compliance with FAR 77.13 and ALUC policies.
xAny proposed land use action by a city or County planning agencies involving a question of
compatibility with the Airport’s activities. For example, creation of a landfill within the AIA would
generally meet all height and density requirements, however the tendency of landfills to attract bird
activity may create a safety hazard for airport operations.
xAny project within the AIA that is voluntarily referred to the ALUC for review by the local agency.
4-3
4.2.1.2 Project Submittals
When review of a land use development proposal is required under this CLUP, the referring agency shall
provide the following information to the ALUC in addition to the information required by the city or
County:
xA map, drawn to an appropriate scale, showing the relationship of the project to the Airport’s
boundaries and runways, airport safety zones, airport noise contours and the FAA Part 77 Surfaces for
the airport.
xA detailed site plan showing ground elevations, location of structures, open spaces and the heights of
structures and landscaping.
xA description of permitted or proposed land uses and restrictions on the uses.
xAn indication of the potential or proposed number of dwelling units per acre for residential uses.
xThe maximum number of people potentially occupying the total site or portions of the site at any one
time.
xAny project submitted for airport land use compatibility review for reasons of height-limit issues shall
include a copy of the Federal Aviation Administration’s evaluation and reply to proponent’s
notification to the FAA using FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration.
4.2.1.3 Review Process
The proposed actions referred to in Section 4.2.1.1 shall be referred to the ALUC at the earliest possible
time but no later than the time allowed in the applicable statutes and regulations, in order that the ALUC's
findings may be considered by the local agency prior to finalizing the proposed action.
The ALUC must find a proposal either 1) consistent with the CLUP or 2) inconsistent with the CLUP.
Additionally, the ALUC can provide recommendations for changes that would enhance the project's
compatibility with the CLUP or the ALUC can state under which conditions the proposal would be
consistent.
The ALUC must take action on a request for a consistency determination within 60 days of the referral. If
the proponent desires to request a delay in determination, the proponent must withdraw the project from
consideration and reapply at a later date. If the determination is not made within 60 days (or as extended
by proponent’s request), the proposal shall be considered consistent with the CLUP.
The ALUC may, at the request of the local jurisdiction or interested party, provide an interpretation of any
of the policies found in this CLUP.
4.2.2 Affected Local Agencies
To bring their General Plan and Specific Plans into conformity with this CLUP, the ALUC recommends
that the affected agencies consider the following:
xAdopt the ALUC policies and the AIA boundary maps.
xIncorporate the adopted ALUC policies, boundary maps, and land use recommendations into the local
agency’s General and/or Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinances.
xProvide ongoing review of land uses within the AIA to ensure that land use changes are compatible
with ALUC policies and plans. The affected local agency shall work closely with ALUC staff to
establish and carry out review coordination with the ALUC.
xIncorporate the AIA boundary maps into the local agency’s geographic information system (GIS).
4-4
4.2.2.1 Overrule Notification Process
The affected local agencies shall:
xNotify the ALUC at least 45 days in advance, of their intent to overrule any ALUC non-consistency
determination including a copy of their proposed decision and specific findings.
xNotify the ALUC if and when the local agency overrules any ALUC non-consistency determinations.
4.2.3 Airport Owner/Operator Responsibilities
To ensure that the ALUC is able to fulfill its statutory responsibilities, Palo Alto Airport management
should:
xNotify the ALUC of operational or physical changes, such as aircraft flight tracks, airfield
configuration, structural development, relocation of facilities, and proposed new and/or updates to
planning documents.
xNotify the ALUC of any changes that may affect Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 height
restriction surfaces or CNEL aircraft noise contours.
xProvide CNEL noise contour data including the most recent actual data as well as forecasts covering at
least twenty years into the future.
4.3 COMPATIBILITY POLICIES
The compatibility of land uses in the vicinity of the Airport will be evaluated for each of the potential land
use impact categories in terms of the compatibility guidelines or policies established for each category of
concern. The graphic illustrations of each area of concern presented in this CLUP are to be included in the
evaluation. The following compatibility policies will be used for ALUC consistency review.
4.3.1 General Compatibility
4.3.1.1 Policies
G-1 In the case of conflicting guidelines or policies, the most restrictive guideline or policy shall be
applied.
G-2 If a project falls into an area within two or more Airport Influence Areas (AIA), the most
restrictive conditions from each separate airport shall apply to the project.
G-3 The Airport is exempt from the policies of this CLUP for the development of projects on airport
property that are directly related to airport operations (examples: terminals, FBOs, fuel storage, passenger
and employee parking). The policies of this CLUP apply to all land uses on airport property that are not
directly related to airport operations (examples: commercial non-aviation uses, athletic fields). In the case
of mixed use, the primary use of the project shall be used to determine if the project is exempt, for
example:
xA terminal building would be considered related to airport operations even though it also provided
retail food and product sales.
xA commercial office complex would not be considered related to airport operations even though some
of the office space might be used for airport administration.
In cases of uncertainty, the ALUC is available to help determine if a land use is or is not directly related to
airport operations. This policy does not relieve the Airport of its other obligations to the ALUC, such as
providing Airport Master Plan Updates for ALUC review.
4-5
G-4 Local jurisdictions should encourage the conversion of land uses that are currently incompatible
with this CLUP to uses that are compatible, where feasible.
G-5 Dedication of an avigation easement to the County of Santa Clara shall be required as a condition
of approval on all projects located within an Airport Influence Area, other than reconstruction projects as
defined in paragraph 4.3.7. All such easements shall be similar to that shown as Exhibit 1 in Appendix A.
G-6 Any proposed uses that may cause a hazard to aircraft in flight are not permitted within the AIA.
Such uses include electrical interference, high intensity lighting, attraction of birds (certain agricultural
uses, sanitary landfills), and activities that may produce smoke, dust, or glare.
G-7 All new exterior lighting within the AIA shall be designed so as to create no interference with
aircraft operations. Such lighting shall be constructed and located so that only the intended area is
illuminated and off-site glare is fully controlled. The lighting shall be arrayed in such a manner that it
cannot be mistaken for airport approach or runway lights by pilots.
4.3.2 Noise Compatibility
The objective of noise compatibility criteria is to minimize the number of people exposed to frequent
and/or high levels of aircraft noise.
4.3.2.1 Policies
N-1 The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) method of representing noise levels shall be
used to determine if a specific land use is consistent with the CLUP.
N-2 In addition to the other guidelines and policies herein, the Noise Compatibility Guidelines
presented in Table 4-1 shall be used to determine if a specific land use is consistent with this CLUP.
N-3 Noise impacts shall be evaluated according to the Aircraft Noise Contours presented on Figure 5.
N-4 No residential construction shall be permitted within the 65 dB CNEL contour boundary unless it
can be demonstrated that the resulting interior sound levels will be less than 45 dB CNEL and there are no
outdoor patios or outdoor activity areas associated with the residential project. All property owners within
the 65 dB CNEL contour boundary who rent or lease their property for residential use shall include in their
rental/lease agreement with the tenant, a statement advising that they (the tenants) are living within a high
noise area and the exterior noise level is predicted to be greater than 65 dB CNEL.
N-5 Residential construction will not be permitted in the area between the 60 dB CNEL contour
boundary and the 65 dB CNEL contour boundary unless it can be demonstrated that the resulting interior
sound level will be no greater than 45 dB CNEL.
N-6 Noise level compatibility standards for other types of land uses shall be applied in the same
manner as the above residential noise level criteria. Table 4-1 presents acceptable noise levels for other
land uses in the vicinity of the Airport.
N-7 Single-event noise levels (SENL) are also to be considered when evaluating the compatibility of
highly noise-sensitive land uses such as schools, libraries, outdoor theaters, and mobile homes. Single-
event noise levels are especially important in the areas regularly overflown by aircraft, but which may not
produce significant CNEL contours, such as the down-wind segment of the traffic pattern, and airport entry
and departure flight corridors.
4.3.3 Height Compatibility
The objective of height compatibility criteria is to avoid development of land uses, which, by posing
hazards to flight, can increase the risk of an accident occurring.
4-6
Table 4 - 1
NOISE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
CNEL LAND USE CATEGORY
55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85
Residential – low density Single-family, duplex,
mobile homes * ** ** ** **** ****
Residential – multi-family, condominiums,
townhouses * ** ** ** **** ****
Transient lodging - motels, hotels * ** ** ** **** ****
Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing
homes * ** ** ** **** ****
Auditoriums, concert halls, amphitheaters ** ** ** ** **** ****
Sports arena, outdoor spectator sports, parking * * ** ** ** ****
Playgrounds, neighborhood parks * * ** ** ** ****
Office buildings, business commercial and
professional * * * ** ** ****
Industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture *********
* Generally Acceptable
Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption
that any buildings involved are of normal conventional
construction, without any special noise insulation
requirements. Outdoor activities are not likely to be
adversely affected.
** Conditionally Acceptable Specified land uses may be permitted only after detailed
analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed
noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor
activities may be adversely affected.
**** Unacceptable New construction or development should generally not be
undertaken because mitigation is usually not feasible to
comply with noise element policies. Outdoor activities are
likely to be adversely affected.
Source: Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (1998), Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment Element, page N-28
4-7
4.3.3.1 Policies
H-1 Any structure or object that penetrates the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, Objects Affecting
Navigable Airspace, (FAR Part 77) surfaces, as presented in Table 3-3 and illustrated on Figure 6 will be
considered an incompatible land use.
H-2 Any project that may exceed a FAR Part 77 surface must notify the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) as required by FAR Part 77, Subpart B on FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed
Construction or Alteration. (Notification to the FAA under FAR Part 77, Subpart B, is required even for
certain proposed construction that does not exceed the height limits allowed by Subpart C of the FARs).
4.3.4 Tall Structure Compatibility
Structures of a height greater than 200 feet above ground level can be a special hazard to aircraft in flight.
4.3.4.1 Policies
T-1 The applicant for any proposed project anywhere in the County for construction or alteration of a
structure (including antennas) higher than 200 feet above ground level shall submit to the FAA a completed
copy of FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. A copy of the submitted form
shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County ALUC as well as a copy of the FAA’s response to this form.
T-2 Any proposed project anywhere in the County for construction or alteration of a structure
(including antennas) higher than 200 feet above ground level shall comply with FAR 77.13(a)(1) and shall
be determined inconsistent if deemed to be a hazard by the FAA or if the ALUC determines that the project
has any impact on normal aircraft operations or would increase the risk to aircraft operations.
4.3.5 Safety Compatibility
The objective of safety compatibility criteria is to minimize the risks associated with potential aircraft
accidents. These include the safety of people on the ground and the safety of aircraft occupants. Land
uses of particular concern are those in which the occupants have reduced effective mobility or are unable to
respond to emergency situations.
4.3.5.1 Policies
S-1 These policies and the Safety Zone Compatibility Guidelines presented in Table 4-2 shall be used
to determine if a specific land use is consistent with the CLUP. Safety impacts shall be evaluated
according to the Airport Safety Zones presented on Figure 7.
S-2 Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and other uses in which the majority of occupants are children,
elderly, and/or disabled shall be prohibited within the Runway Protection Zones (RPZs), Inner Safety
Zones (ISZs), Turning Safety Zones (TSZs), Sideline Safety Zones (SSZs), and Outer Safety Zones (OSZs)
presented in Table 3-2. These uses should also be discouraged in the Traffic Pattern Zones (TPZs).
S-3 Amphitheaters, sports stadiums and other very high concentrations of people shall be prohibited
within the Runway Protection Zones (RPZs), Inner Safety Zones (ISZs), Turning Safety Zones (TSZs),
Sideline Safety Zones (SSZs), Outer Safety Zones (OSZs) and Traffic Pattern Zones (TPZs) presented in
Table 4-2.
S-4 Storage of fuel or other hazardous materials shall be prohibited in the Runway Protection Zone.
Above ground storage of fuel or other hazardous materials shall be prohibited in the Inner Safety Zone and
Turning Safety Zone. Beyond these zones, storage of fuel or other hazardous materials not associated with
aircraft use should be discouraged.
4-8
Table 4 - 2
SAFETY ZONE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
Safety
Zone
Maximum
Population Density
Open Area
Requirements
Land Use
Runway Protection
Zone – RPZ
-0-
(No people allowed)
100 percent
(No structures
allowed)
Agricultural activities, roads, open low-
landscaped areas. No trees, telephone poles or
similar obstacles. Occasional sort-term transient
vehicle parking is permitted.
Inner Safety Zone –
ISZ
Nonresidential,
maximum 60 people
per acre (includes
open area and parking
area required for the
building’s occupants)
30 percent of gross
area open. No
structures or
concentrations of
people between or
within 100 feet of the
extended runway
centerlines.
Very low-density residential. 10 acres or more
per dwelling unit - Nonresidential uses should be
activities that attract relatively few people. No
shopping centers, restaurants, theaters, meeting
halls, stadiums, multi-story office buildings,
labor-intensive manufacturing plants,
educational facilities, day care facilities,
hospitals, nursing homes or similar activities.
No hazardous material facilities (gasoline
stations, etc.).
Turning Safety Zone -
TSZ
Nonresidential,
maximum 100 people
per acre (includes
open area and parking
area required for the
building’s occupants)
20 percent of gross
area
Minimum dimensions:
300 ft by 75 ft parallel
to the runway(s).
Very low-density residential, 5 acres or more per
dwelling unit.
No regional shopping centers, theaters, meeting
halls, stadiums, buildings with more than three
above ground habitable floors, schools, day care
centers, hospitals, nursing homes or similar
activities. No hazardous material facilities
(gasoline stations, etc.).
Outer Safety Zone –
OSZ
Nonresidential,
maximum 100 people
per acre (includes
open area and parking
area required for the
building’s occupants)
20 percent of gross
area
Rural areas - allow residential, 2 acres or more
per dwelling unit.
Urban areas - allow residential infill to existing
density.
No regional shopping centers, theaters, meeting
halls, stadiums, buildings with more than three
above ground habitable floors, schools, large day
care centers, hospitals, nursing homes or similar
activities.
No above ground bulk fuel storage.
Sideline Safety Zone -
SSZ
Nonresidential,
maximum 150 people
per acre (includes
open area and parking
area required for the
building’s occupants)
30 percent of gross
area
Residential - 5 acres or more per dwelling unit.
No regional shopping centers, theaters, meeting
halls, stadiums, buildings with more than three
above ground habitable floors, schools, large day
care centers, hospitals, nursing homes or similar
activities. No above ground bulk fuel storage.
Traffic Pattern Zone –
TPZ
No Limit 10 percent of gross
area every one-half
mile
Residential – No Limit.
No sports stadiums or similar uses with very
high concentration of people.
Source: Based on 2002 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook prepared by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics
4-9
S-5 In addition to the requirements of Table 4-2, open space requirements, for sites which can
accommodate an open space component, shall be established at the general plan level for each safety zone,
as individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum-size open space requirement. To
qualify as open space, an area must be free of structures, walls, large trees or poles (greater than 4” in
diameter) and overhead wires, and have minimum dimensions of at least 75 feet wide by 300 feet long
along the normal direction of flight. In addition, a clear path must exist which allows aircraft to reach the
open space. Hence, an open area surrounded by structures or trees may not qualify as open space if such
obstructions preclude a gliding aircraft from reaching the ground under full control of the pilot. The
clustering of development and provision of contiguous landscaping and parking areas will be encouraged to
increase the size of open space areas.
S-6 The principal means of reducing risks to people on the ground is to restrict land uses so as to limit
the number of people who might gather in areas most susceptible to aircraft accidents. A method for
determining the concentration of people for various land uses is presented in Section 5.0, Implementation.
S-7 The following uses shall be prohibited in all Airport Safety Zones:
xAny use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors
associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following
takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other
than an FAA-approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator.
xAny use that would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight
climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at
an airport.
xAny use which would generate smoke or water vapor, or which would attract large concentrations of
birds, or which may otherwise negatively affect safe air navigation within the area.
xAny use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of
aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation, communication or navigation equipment.
S-8 Structures or trees that would interfere with an aircraft gliding to an emergency landing in a safety
zone open area are not permitted.
S-9 In exceptional cases a variance can be granted, at the discretion of the ALUC, on the basis of
mitigation measures proposed by the applicant which would result in the final project improving the overall
safety in the safety zones in comparison to the situation existing prior to the project. An example of such a
possible mitigation is the removal of existing incompatible structures in exchange for constructing less
incompatible structures. The following conditions must be met for this variance to be granted:
a. There must be a clear, demonstrable net improvement in safety.
b. The mitigation must provide a permanent improvement in safety. For instance, in the example
above, the removed structures could not be replaced by other structures at a later date.
4.3.6 Overflight
The objective of the overflight compatibility criteria is to assist those persons who are highly annoyed by
overflights or have an above-average sensitivity to aircraft overflights to avoid living in locations where
these impacts may occur.
4.3.6.1 Policies
O-1 All new projects within the AIA shall be required to dedicate an avigation easement to the County
of Santa Clara. The avigation easement shall be similar to that shown as Exhibit 1 in Appendix A.
(In September of 2002 Assembly Bill AB2776 was signed into law and became effective on January 1,
2004. This statute requires that as part of the real estate transfer process, the residential property purchaser
4-10
be informed if the property is in an Airport Influence Area and be informed of the potential impacts
resulting from the associated airport. This law is not always being followed.)
4.3.7 Reconstruction
Reconstruction as used in this CLUP is the rebuilding of a legally established structure located in any of the
safety zones, to its original conditions (typically due to a fire, or earthquake damage or destruction).
“Original conditions” means the same or lesser footprint, height and intensity of use. Reconstruction
projects may be approved under the following policies:
4.3.7.1 Policies
R-1 Reconstruction projects that are not subject to a previous avigation easement shall not be required
to provide an avigation easement as a condition for approval.
R-2 Residential reconstruction projects must include noise insulation to assure interior noise levels of
less than 45 dB CNEL.
R-3 An application for reconstruction increasing the structure’s internal square footage, footprint
square footage, height, and/or intensity of use may be approved if the ALUC determines that such increase
will have no adverse impact beyond that which existed with the original structure. However, a project
approved under this policy shall require the property owner to provide an avigation easement to the
jurisdiction operating the airport, similar to Exhibit 1 in the Appendix.
4.3.8 Infill
Infill as used in this CLUP is defined as the development of vacant or underutilized properties located in a
safety zone, of less than 0.25 acres in size, in areas that are already substantially developed with uses not
ordinarily permitted by the CLUP compatibility criteria. In some circumstances, infill projects may be
acceptable if the following criteria are met.
4.3.8.1 Policies
I-1 Infill projects must comply with all safety policies and guidelines of this CLUP with the possible
exception of the land use density requirements.
I-2 Infill projects may be approved if all of the following conditions are met:
a) The total contiguous undeveloped land area at this location is less than 0.25 acres in size. Note
that this means the total contiguous undeveloped land area, not just the land area being proposed
for development. Lots larger than 0.25 acres shall not be considered for infill.
b) The site is already surrounded on three sides and a street, or two sides and two streets, by the
same land use as that being proposed.
c) The ALUC determines that the project will create no adverse impacts beyond those that already
exist due to the existing incompatible land uses.
d) The property owner shall provide an avigation easement to the jurisdiction operating the airport,
similar to Exhibit 1 in the Appendix.
Section 5
5 IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL PLANS AND ZONING
The California State Aeronautics Act {Public Utilities Code: Division 9, Part 1, Chapter 4, Article 3.5,
Section 21670 et seq} places the responsibility for implementing and enforcing this Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLUP) on the local governmental agencies responsible for land use planning within each
airport’s Airport Influence Area (AIA).
Once the ALUC has adopted a revised (or new) CLUP, and transmitted that CLUP to an affected local
agency that local agency is mandated to incorporate the CLUP’s provisions into its General and/or Specific
Plan(s) within 180 days {Government Code 65302.3(b)}. Implicitly, the local agency is then required to
adopt zoning ordinance(s) that implement the policies of their General/Specific Plan(s).
If a local agency decides not to incorporate the CLUP policies verbatim in its General and/or Specific
plans, it may overrule portions (or all of) the CLUP if it finds that its General and/or Specific Plans are
consistent with the State Aeronautics Act, PUC 21670 et seq. The overrule process requires a two-thirds
vote of the local agency’s governing body, supported by specific findings which demonstrate that the
plan(s) satisfy the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act {PUC 21670 et seq} and guidance of the state’s
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
During the amendment process and subsequent to adoption of revised General and/or Specific Plan(s) by a
local agency, the ALUC is required to promptly review both the draft and final Plan(s) for a CLUP
consistency determination {PUC 21676}.
5.2 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The most fundamental means of assuring compatibility between an airport and surrounding land uses is by
the designation of appropriate land uses in local general plans, specific plans, and zoning ordinances. Even
with the designation of appropriate land uses, the long-term maintenance of airports and land use
compatibility is often difficult to achieve.
Land use designations can be limited in the degree of restrictiveness that can be applied. If the land use
restrictions eliminate all reasonable economic use of private property, they can be considered an
unconstitutional taking and result in inverse condemnation. This is particularly applicable in areas near the
ends of the runways where such extreme restrictions may be appropriate. For this reason airport
owners/operators are encouraged to purchase the land containing the most restrictive safety zones.
Land use designations for an area for different uses than already exist may encourage change in the long
term, but it may not eliminate existing incompatible uses. Other actions such as fee simple acquisition or
purchase of development rights may be necessary to bring about the changes.
5.2.1 Airport Overlay Zones
One way of achieving aviation-oriented land use designations is adoption of an overlay or combining zone.
An overlay zone supplements local land use designations by adding specific noise and, often more
importantly, safety criteria (e.g., maximum number of people on the site, site design, and open space
criteria, height restrictions, etc.) applicable to future development in the AIA.
An airport overlay zone has several important benefits. Most importantly, it permits the continued
utilization of the majority of the design and use guidelines contained in the existing zones. At the same
time, it provides a mechanism for implementation of restrictions and conditions that may apply to only a
few types of land uses within a given land use category or zoning district. This avoids the need for a large
number of discrete zoning districts. It also enables local jurisdictions to use the policies provided in the
CLUP, rather than through redefinition of existing zoning district descriptions.
5-1
The County and cities should consider the following for inclusion in the Airport Overlay District Zone
(Airport Safety Overlay Zone):
xNoise Insulation Standards - In areas that will potentially be impacted by noise, the Airport Overlay
District Zone could be used to assure compliance with the State statutes regarding interior noise levels.
The Overlay District Zone could specify the construction techniques necessary to meet the
requirements.
xHeight Limitations - Restrictions on the height of buildings, antennas, trees, and other objects near the
Airport, as defined by Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Subpart C, and regulated by the
California Aeronautics Law, can be implemented as part of the Airport Overlay District Zone.
xFAA Notification Requirements - The Airport Overlay District Zone also can be used to assure that
project developers are informed about the need for compliance with the notification requirements of
FAR Part 77. Subpart B of the regulations requires that the proponent of any project that exceeds a
specified set of height criteria submit a FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or
Alteration to the FAA prior to commencement of construction. The height criteria associated with this
notification requirement are lower than those in FAR Part 77, Subpart C, which define airspace
obstructions. The purpose of the notification is to determine if the proposed construction would
constitute a potential hazard or obstruction to flight. Notification is not required for proposed
structures that would be shielded by existing structures or by natural terrain of equal or greater height,
where it is obvious that the proposal would not adversely affect air safety.
xMaximum Densities - The principal noise and safety compatibility standards in the CLUP are
expressed in terms of dwelling units per acre for residential uses and people per acre for other land
uses. These standards can either be included as is in the Airport Overlay District Zone or used to
modify the underlying land use designations. For residential land uses, the correlation between the
compatibility criteria and land use designations is direct. For other land uses, the implications of the
density limitations are not as clear. One step that can be taken by local governments is to establish a
matrix indicating whether specific types of land uses are or are not compatible with each of the four
compatibility zones. To be useful, the land use categories will need to be more detailed than typically
provided by general plan or zoning ordinance land use designations.
xOpen Space Requirements - CLUP criteria regarding AIA open space suitable for emergency aircraft
landings can be implemented by the Airport Overlay District Zone. These criteria are most effectively
carried out by planning at the general or specific plan level, but may also need to be addressed in terms
of development restrictions on large parcels.
5.2.2 Avigation Easements
Avigation easements are another type of land use control measure available to local jurisdictions.
Historically, avigation easements have been used to establish height limitations, prevent other flight
hazards, and prevent noise impacts. More recently, they have been used as a form of buyer awareness - the
recording of an easement against a property ensures that prospective buyers of the property are informed
about the Airport impacts. (See the Appendix for a typical Avigation Easement).
An avigation easement applies only to the specific property to which it is attached and it is binding on all
subsequent owners of the property. Avigation easements can be obtained either by purchase or by required
dedication.
xPurchase - Acquisition of avigation easements for a monetary amount is usually done by the Airport
owner, which may or may not be the same as the local land use jurisdiction. In most instances, the
purchase of avigation easements is limited to property within Runway Protection Zones or elsewhere
very close to the Airport’s boundaries where some significant degree of restriction or impact is
involved.
xDedication - Required dedication of avigation easements is sometimes set as a condition for local
jurisdiction approval of a proposed land use development, especially a residential development, in the
5-2
vicinity of an Airport. Generally, when avigation easements are obtained in this manner, they are
primarily intended to serve as a comprehensive and stringent form of a buyer awareness measure.
A standard avigation easement conveys the following property rights from the owner of the property to the
holder of the easement:
xOverflight - A right-of-way for free and unobstructed passage of aircraft through the airspace over the
property at any altitude above a surface specified in the easement (in accordance with Federal Aviation
Regulations Part 77 and/or criteria for terminal instrument procedures).
xImpacts - A right to subject the property to noise, vibration, fumes, dust, and fuel particle emissions
associated with airport and aircraft activity.
xHeight Limits - A right to prohibit the construction or growth of any structure, tree, or other object
that would penetrate the acquired airspace.
xAccess and Abatement - A right-of-entry onto the property, with appropriate advance notice, for the
purpose of removing, marking, or lighting any structure or other object that enters the acquired
airspace.
xOther Restrictions - A right to prohibit electrical interference, glare, misleading light sources, visual
impairments, and other hazards to aircraft from being created on the property.
Easements that convey only one or more of these rights are common. An easement containing only the first
two rights is usually referred to as an overflight or noise easement. The latter three rights are often
collectively called a height-limit or airspace easement. Overflight easements are useful in locations
sufficiently distant from an airport where height limits and other restrictions are not a concern. Height-
limit easements have most frequently been obtained by purchase of properties close to an airport where
restrictions on the height of objects are necessary. Because height-limit easements do not include the
overflight easement rights, there is little apparent advantage to obtaining them rather than a complete
avigation easement.
5.2.3 Buyer Awareness Measures
Buyer awareness is an umbrella category for types of airport/land use compatibility measures whose
objective is to ensure that prospective buyers of property in the vicinity of an airport are made aware of the
airport's existence and the impacts that the airport activity has on surrounding land uses. Avigation
easements are the most definitive form of a buyer awareness measure. Buyer awareness can also be
successfully implemented through other types of programs. Two primary methods are deed notices and
real-estate disclosure statements.
xDeed Notices. Deed notices are statements recorded with the County Clerk-Recorder disclosing that
the property is subject to routine overflights and associated noise and other impacts by aircraft
operating at a nearby airport. An ideal application of deed notices is as a condition of approval for
development of residential land use in airport-vicinity locations where neither noise nor safety are
significant factors, but frequent aircraft overflights may be annoying to some people. In addition to
being recorded with the deed to a property, the notices should be recorded with parcel maps and any
tentative or final subdivision maps. (See the Appendix for a typical Deed Notice).
Deed notices are similar to avigation or other aviation-related easements in that they become part of
the title to a property and thus are a permanent form of buyer awareness. The distinguishing difference
between deed notices and avigation easements is that deed notices only serve as a disclosure of
potential overflights, whereas avigation easements convey an identified set of property rights. In
locations where height limitations or other land use restrictions are unnecessary, deed notices have the
advantage of being less cumbersome to define. Also, they have less appearance of having a negative
effect on the value of the property.
5-3
xReal Estate Disclosure Statements.A more comprehensive form of buyer awareness program is to
require that information about an Airport Influence Area be disclosed to prospective buyers of all
airport-vicinity properties prior to the transfer of title. The advantage of this type of program is that it
applies to previously existing land uses as well as to new development.
This type of program can be implemented through adoption of a local ordinance requiring real estate
disclosure upon the transfer of title or it can be established in conjunction with the adoption of an
airport overlay zone. Notification describing the zone and discussing its significance could be
formally sent to all local real-estate brokers and title companies. The brokers would be obligated by
State law to pass it along to prospective buyers after receiving this information.
At a minimum, the area covered by a real estate disclosure program should include the Airport
Influence Area as established in the CLUP. The boundary also could be defined to coincide with the
boundaries of an airport overlay zone.
5.2.4 Methods of Calculating Density and Building Occupancy
The Safety Compatibility Guidelines for non-residential uses limit the persons per acre in certain safety
zones. Determining the maximum number of persons likely to occupy a structure is not an exact science,
however, the following methods are available to provide a reasonable estimate of how many persons will
use a proposed facility.
xParking Ordinance. Most jurisdictions have parking regulations, which specify how many parking
spaces are required for particular types of uses. Once an assumption is made regarding the number of
persons per vehicle, an estimate can be made of the maximum number of persons that could occupy the
structure. The assumption of persons per vehicle must be based on the type of use.
xNumber of Seats. If the proposed use provides seating for its patrons, such as a restaurant, it is
relatively easy to determine the maximum number of people that could occupy the structure.
xUniform Building Code. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) specifies a certain number of square
feet per occupant that are required for certain uses. This number can be determined through contact
with the city or County Building Department.
xSimilar Uses. Certain uses may require an estimate based on a survey of similar uses. This method is
more difficult but is appropriate for uses, which because of the nature of the use, cannot be reasonably
estimated based on parking or square footage.
5-4
Section 6
6 BIBLIOGRAPHY
California Building Standards Commission, Title 24,California Building Standards Code, 1998, California
Building Code, Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Division IIA, Section 1208A.8, pg. 1-332
California Code of Regulations, Title 21,Public Works, 1998,Division 2.5, Division of Aeronautics,
Chapter 6, Noise Standards
California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program,California Aviation System Plan, 1998
Inventory Element, September 1998
California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program,California Aviation System Plan, 1999
Statewide Forecasts,September 1999
County of Santa Clara,General Plan, adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in December 1994.
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.,Palo Alto Airport Master Plan Update and Business Plan Study,
Chapter 2, Airport Roles and Forecasts, prepared for The County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports
Department, 2002
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.,Palo Alto Airport Noise Contours (HMMH Project # 297920.016),
prepared for The County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department, February 24, 2006
Mead & Hunt,Palo Alto Airport Master Plan Report,December 2006
Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission,Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara
County Airports, Adopted September, 1992
Shutt Moen Associates,California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, prepared for California
Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, January 2002
State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, Appendix A,
November 1998 (formerly Office of Noise Control Guidelines)
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, AC 150/5300-13,Airport Design,
February 1997
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,Integrated Noise Model, Version 6.1,
March 2003
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems (NPIAS) 2007-2011, September 2006
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Terminal Area Forecasts,
FY 2008-2025, July 2007
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36,Aircraft Type and Airworthiness
Certification, 2004
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77,Objects Affecting Navigable
Airspace, 2004
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning, 2004
6-1
7 APPENDIX A
Sample Implementation Documents
Some ALUC approvals may require the dedication of Avigation Easements or use of Deed Notices in
selected areas around the Airport. Examples might be the dedication of Avigation Easements for any
development within the Traffic Pattern Zone, especially within the Safety Zones and Runway Protection
Zones. Deed Notices might be more appropriate for development outside the Traffic Pattern Zone but
within the Airport Influence Area.
Examples of these documents are presented on the following pages.
Exhibit 1 – Avigation Easement
Exhibit 2 – Deed Notice
7-1
Exhibit 1
Sample Avigation Easement
AVIGATION EASEMENT DEED
_________________________________________ [list owners of property in exact form as on deed
for property] (hereinafter “Grantor”) hereby grant an avigation easement to the County of Santa Clara,
a political subdivision in the State of California (hereinafter “Grantee”).
The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, does hereby grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns,a perpetual and assignable
easement over the following described parcel of land in which the Grantor holds fee title. The property
which is subject to this Avigation Easement is located at [insert address and assessor’s parcel number] and
is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (hereinafter
“Property”).
The easement conveyed herein (“Avigation Easement”) applies to both the Property and the airspace
above an imaginary plane over the Property (hereinafter “Airspace”), which is described as follows:
The imaginary plane above the hereinbefore described real property, as such plane is defined
by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations and consists of a plane [describe approach,
transition, or horizontal surface]: the elevation of said plane being based upon the official
FAA Palo Alto Airport elevation of _____ feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), the
approximate dimensions of which said plane are described and shown on Exhibit B attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The purposes of this Avigation Easement include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) The use and benefit of the public for the continuing right to fly, or cause or permit the flight by
any and all persons, or any aircraft, of any and all kinds now or hereafter known, in, through,
across, or about any portion of the Property and Airspace; and
(2) The right to cause or create, or permit or allow to be caused or created within all space above the
existing surface of the Property and any and all Airspace above the Property, such noise,
vibration, currents and other effects of air, illumination and fuel consumption as may be inherent
in, or may arise or occur from or during the operation of aircraft of any and all kinds, now or
hereafter known or used, for navigation of or flight in air; and
(3) A continuing right to clear and keep clear from the Property and Airspace any portions of
buildings, structures, or improvements of any kinds, and of trees or other objects, including the
right to remove or demolish those portions of such buildings, structures, improvements, trees, or
other things which extend into or above the Airspace, and the right to cut to the ground level and
remove any trees which extend into or above the Airspace; and
(4) The right to mark and light, or cause or require to be marked or lighted, as obstructions to air navi-
gation, any and all buildings, structures, or other improvements, and trees or other objects which
extend into or above the Airspace; and
(5) The right of ingress to, passage within, and egress from the Property for the purposes described in
subparagraphs (3) and (4) above at reasonable times and after reasonable notice.
For and behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, the Grantor hereby covenants with the Grantee, for
the direct benefit of the real property constituting the Palo Alto Airport (hereinafter “Airport”), that
7-2
neither the Grantor, nor its successors in interest or assigns will construct, install, erect, place or grow
in or upon the Property, nor will they allow, any building structure, improvement, tree or other object to
extend into or above the Airspace or constitute an obstruction to air navigation, or to obstruct or
interfere with the use of this Avigation Easement.
This Avigation Easement shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the direct benefit of that real
property which constitutes the Airport in the County of Santa Clara, State of California; and shall
further be deemed in gross, being conveyed to the Grantee for the benefit of the Grantee and to any and
all members of the general public who may use Airspace for landing at, taking off from or operating
such aircraft in or about the Airport, or in otherwise flying above the Property or through said Airspace.
Grantor, together with its successors in interest and assigns, hereby waives its right to legal action
against Grantee, its officers, employees, successors, and assigns for monetary damages or other redress
due to impacts associated with aircraft operations in the air or on the ground at the Airport, including
future increases in the volume or changes in location of said operations. Furthermore, Grantee, its
officers, employees, successors, and assigns shall have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages
through physical modifications of airport facilities or establishment or modification of aircraft
operational procedures or restrictions. This grant of Avigation Easement shall not operate to deprive
the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights which it may have against any air carrier or private
operator for negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft.
These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators,
executors, successors and assigns of the Grantor, and, for the purpose of this Avigation Easement, the
Property and Airspace hereinabove described constitute the servient tenement and property comprising
the Airport is the dominant tenement.
DATED: ____________ _________________________________________________
Name: ___________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Name: ___________________________________________
[Note: Signatures of grantors must be notarized.]
7-3
Exhibit 2
Sample Deed Notice
The following statement should be included on the deed and recorded by the transferor with the County
Clerk-Recorder for any property located within the Airport Influence Area. This statement should also
be included on any parcel map, tentative map or final map for subdivision approval for any property
within the Airport Influence Area.
The Santa Clara County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies
Airport Influence Areas. Properties within these areas are routinely subject to
overflights by aircraft using the associated airport and, as a result residents
may experience inconvenience, annoyance or discomfort arising from the
noise or sight of such operations. State law (Public Utilities code sections
21670 et. Seq.) establishes the importance of public use airports to protection
of the public interest of the people of the State of California. Residents of
property near such airports should therefore be prepared to accept the
inconvenience, annoyance or discomfort from normal aircraft operations.
Residents also should be aware that the current volume of aircraft activity
may increase in the future in response to government needs, Santa Clara
County population and/or economic growth. Any subsequent deed conveying
this parcel or subdivisions there of shall contain a statement in substantially
this form.
7-4
8 APPENDIX B
Selected Excerpts
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002)
Establishing Noise Compatibility Policies
[Page Summary-8]
"Compatibility plans should be based upon the noise contours for the time frame that results in the greatest
noise impacts. Usually, this time frame is the long-range future (at least 20 years), but sometimes can be the
present or a combination of the two. Also, for busy airports, the capacity of the runway system may be the
best representation of potential long-range future activity levels.”
[Pages 7-18,19]
"State statutes specify that airport land use compatibility plans must be based upon an airport development
plan "that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years." Forecasts having
the required 20-year time horizon are normally included in airport master plans. The FAA, the Division of
Aeronautics, and some regional planning agencies also prepare individual airport forecasts, some extending
to 20 years.
For the purposes of compatibility planning, however, 20 years may be shortsighted. For most airports, a
lifespan of more than 20 years can reasonably be presumed. Moreover, the need to avoid incompatible land
use development will exist for as long as an airport exists. Once development occurs near an airport, it is
virtually impossible or at least very costly and time consuming to change the land uses to ones which
would be more compatible with airport activities
In conducting noise analyses for compatibility plans, the long-range time frame is almost always of greatest
significance. Barring vast improvements in aircraft noise reduction technology, the growth in aircraft
operations expected at most airports will result in larger noise contours. A possible exception to this trend
is that, at some airports, planned changes in runway configuration or approach procedures could result in
reduction of noise impacts in some portions of the airport environs. In these instances, a combination of
current and future noise contours may be the appropriate basis for compatibility planning.
Past improvements in aircraft noise reduction technology or, more to the point, the elimination of older,
noisier aircraft from the fleet have caused noise contours at some airports to shrink. One result of shrinking
contour sizes during the late 1990s was pressure to allow residential and other noise-sensitive development
closer to airports. Allowing such development might be reasonable in situations where no potential exists
for the contours to expand back to their former size (for example, where policies to limit contour sizes have
been adopted). However, whether future technology will again enable significant reduction in noise impacts
is uncertain. Thus, looking to the long-range future, the scenario which has the greatest land use planning
implications for most airports is that anticipated future growth in airport activity will result in expansion of
noise contours.
G U I D A N C E
The "at least" phrase in the statutory guidelines deserves emphasis. The 20-year time frame should be
considered a minimum for compatibility plans. Noise impacts (as well as other compatibility concerns)
should be viewed from the longest practical time perspective."
8-1
This page was intentionally left blank
Attachment B
This page was intentionally left blank
L-1
Embracing the New Century
VisionStatement
Introduction
The relationship between land use, urban design, transportation, and economics are empha-
sized in the Land Use and Community Design Element. While the 1980-1995 Comprehensive
Plan addressed urban design as a separate Plan Element, this Plan recognizes that the design
of buildings and surrounding spaces cannot be separated from land use decisions. Urban de-
sign considerations appear throughout the Element. The Element also recognizes that land use
decisions must be closely integrated with transportation and economic decisions. This is re-
flected in the Element’s focus on the physical linkages between different parts of the City and
the future role of the City’s business centers.
The Land Use and Community Design Element provides a “constitution” for the development
of public and private property. It begins by describing the context in which local planning
decisions are made, and proceeds with goals, policies, and programs covering a broad range of
growth and development topics. The goals, policies and programs are organized into three
major sections. The first section—Local Land Use and Growth Management—establishes the
limits to urban growth and sets the direction for maintaining the City’s scale and character. The
second section—City Structure—presents a new conceptual structure for Palo Alto, organizing
the City into Residential Neighborhoods, Centers, and Employment Districts. This section fo-
cuses on the way these areas are connected to each other and includes policies and programs
for specific geographic areas of the City. The third section—Design of Buildings and Public
Spaces—addresses citywide urban design issues, including historic preservation and the de-
sign of buildings, civic uses, public ways, public art, and infrastructure.
This Element meets the State-mandated requirements for a Land Use Element. It defines the
City’s land use categories and includes the proposed Land Use and Circulation Map guiding
the development of each property in the City. Four new land use categories—Mixed Use,
Transit-Oriented Residential, Village Residential, and Commercial Hotel—have been added
since the previous Comprehensive Plan.
2 Land Use and Community Design
alo Alto will be a vital, attractive place to live, work, and visit.
The elements that make Palo Alto a great community—its
neighborhoods, shopping and employment centers, civic uses,
open spaces, and natural resources—will be strengthened and enhanced.
The diverse range of housing and work environments will be sustained and
expanded to create more choices for all income levels. All Palo Alto
neighborhoods will be improved, each to have public gathering spaces,
essential services and pedestrian amenities, to encourage less reliance on
the automobile.
See Map L-1 for an aerial
view of Palo Alto and its
environs
P
Attachment C
L-2
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Planning Context
PALO ALTO’S ROLE WITHIN THE REGION
Palo Alto is located in the northern part of Santa Clara County, in the portion of the Bay Area
known as the Mid-Peninsula. The City shares a boundary with San Mateo County and six cities.
Through time, Palo Alto has maintained close and collaborative relationships with adjoining
counties and cities. Its officials and citizens have maintained a tradition of leadership in land
use, transportation, and environmental planning efforts, both at the local and regional level.
These efforts have yielded policies for controlling and managing the region’s growth, protecting
open space, and conserving natural resources.
Santa Clara County is projected to add more than 233,000 new residents by the year 2010. San
Mateo County will add approximately 50,000 residents by the same year. Although only a small
portion of this growth will be in Palo Alto, the City is not insulated from the challenges of an
increasing population. These challenges can only be faced through cooperative regional plan-
ning. Palo Alto will continue to be a partner in this process. The City has long supported Santa
Clara County’s General Plan provisions for an “Urban Service Area” to manage urban growth
and limit sprawl, as well as the County’s concept of “compact development.” The City’s Plan
will help realize the broader County goal of directing growth to appropriate locations within the
urban area, particularly along transit corridors and near employment centers.
Pacific
Ocean
101
280
280
580
880
680
580
101
101
1
580 80
84
85
237
17
680
80
Æ
Æ
85
24
Oakland
Half
Moon
Bay
San
Francisco
87
1
92
Æ
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Marin
C
o
u
n
t
y
Contra
C
o
s
t
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
Alame
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
Al
a
m
e
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
Sa
nta
Clara County
To Santa Cruz
& Monterey
Alameda
C
o
u
n
t
y
680
Union City
Hayward
East
Palo
Alto
Los
Altos
Los
Altos
Hills
Portola
Valley
Menlo
Park
San
Carlos
Woodside
Cupertino
Milpitas
San Mateo
BerkeleySausilito
Fremont
Mountain
View
Santa
Clara
Saratoga
StevensCreekResevoir
CalaverasResevoir
SanAntonioResevoir
LakeChabot
SanLeandroResevoir
BrionesResevoir
LakeMerced
SanAndreasLake
UpperCrystalSpringsResevoir
Lower CrystalSpringsResevoir
Burlingame
San Bruno
Daly City
San Leandro
84
35
35
84
Pacifica
Mill Valley
Corte
Madera
Tiboron
Richmond
El Cerito
Alameda
Lafayette Walnut
Creek
Concord
Danville
To
Livermore
Dublin
San
Lorenzo
Newark
Campbell
Stanford
University
San
Francisco
Bay
Atherton
SantaClara
County
San
Mateo
County Santa Cruz
Co.
SearsvilleLake
Redwood
City
Hetch Hetchy Aqu
e
d
u
c
t
Contra C
o
s
t
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
San
JoseN
Sunnyvale
To Sacramento
Palo Alto, shown in black, has a
tradition of collaborating with
neighboring cities and counties in
the Bay Area. The City has taken
an active role in addressing
regional planning issues.
See Map L-2 showing Palo
Alto’s Sphere of Influence
and Urban Service Area
L-3
Embracing the New Century
In the 1990s, Palo Alto has worked with neighboring East Palo Alto and Menlo Park on com-
mon issues and matters of mutual interest. The three cities participate in a variety of shared
economic development, social service, education, public safety, and housing programs. Palo
Alto participates with Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills in many ways, including
fire protection and operation of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The City also is an
active player in the County’s Congestion Management Program.
Some of the most significant opportunities for growth and change in the Palo Alto area are on
Stanford University lands. Although the campus itself lies outside the City limits, most of the
University’s income-producing lands are within Palo Alto. Stanford owns land outside of Palo
Alto as well, extending into unincorporated Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. The commu-
nity values the open space amenities afforded by this land but also recognizes the right of the
University in using its properties for academic purposes. Agreements about development on
unincorporated Stanford lands are captured in an inter-jurisdictional agreement between
Stanford, Palo Alto and Santa Clara County. In general, the University supports the concept of
compact development and prefers that its future expansion be contained within the current
limits of development on the Stanford Campus.
The relationship between the City and the University has always been complex and even tense
at times. However, there have always been mutual benefits. In recent land use and transporta-
tion planning efforts, Palo Alto and Stanford have worked together to plan for the University
Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station Area and explore options for expanding the University’s
Marguerite Shuttle Bus within the City. These ventures hold promise for the future and will
continue to be pursued.
EVOLUTION OF THE CITY
A university town from the beginning, Palo Alto was incorporated in 1894 on lands purchased
and subdivided by Timothy Hopkins. Hopkins, a friend of Leland Stanford, planned the town to
serve the newly established Stanford University. The City grew to many times its original size
The original Hopkins Tract,
also known as University
Park, was proclaimed a local
Heritage District during Palo
Alto’s 1994 Centennial.
See Map L-3 showing
Stanford University lands
within Palo Alto and other
jurisdictions
L-4
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Over half of Palo Alto’s land
area is designated as parks
or open space. About one-
fourth of the City consists of
single family residences.
over the next century as land to the south and east was annexed. The town was originally
centered around the commercial district along University Avenue. Although this area remains
Palo Alto’s central business district, the geographic center of the City has shifted several miles
south.
The town of Mayfield, about 1-1/2 miles southeast of University Avenue, predated the founding
of Palo Alto by 40 years. Mayfield continued to develop as a separate town until its annexation
to Palo Alto in 1925. Its main commercial street, California Avenue, became a second business
district for the City as the land between Mayfield and Uni-
versity Avenue was developed. Today, California Avenue
is an active retail and commercial center that retains its
small town ambience. Its role as a transit hub and its close
proximity to Stanford Research Park give the area citywide
significance and will continue to influence its character
in the future.
Palo Alto saw its greatest expansion during the decade
following World War II. The City boundary was expanded
south to Mountain View and the City's residential land
area virtually doubled. New neighborhood shopping cen-
ters like Alma Plaza and Midtown were developed to serve
the growing population. This period of expansion coin-
cided with the transformation of the City from a “college
town” to a world leader in high technology. Most of the
City’s office, research, and light industrial areas were an-
nexed during the 1950s, including Stanford Research Park,
Embarcadero Road northeast of Bayshore, and the West
Bayshore/San Antonio Road area. The Stanford Shopping
Center was incorporated into the City in 1953.
A major portion of Palo Alto—most of it undeveloped—
lies west of Foothill Expressway. This area was annexed
between 1959 and 1968 and is mostly zoned for open
space. Elsewhere, small pockets of residential develop-
ment were gradually annexed into the City during the
1950s, 60s, and 70s, closing the borders with Mountain
View and Los Altos. The City’s last significant expansions
were annexation of the Barron Park neighborhood in 1975
and a large tract of marshland open space in the baylands in 1979. With adoption of the Baylands
Master Plan in 1978, urban uses were limited to approximately 200 acres of existing develop-
ment along Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. The remaining 1,700 acres were
dedicated for recreation and restoration of marshland wildlife habitat.
Today, Palo Alto comprises 16,627 acres, or about 26 square miles. Approximately 40 percent
of this area is in parks and preserves and another 15 percent consists of agriculture and other
open space uses. The remaining area is nearly completely developed, with single family uses
predominating. Less than one percent of the City’s land area consists of vacant, developable
land.
Land Use Distribution
Single Family – 25%
Source: The Palo Alto Planning Division (1996)
Multiple Family – 4%
7.5%
Multi-Family
CommercialVacant
Vacant – .5%
Public Facilities – 4.5%
Parks/Preserves/
Open Space – 40.5%
R&D/Mfg
OS/Controlled
Dev/Agriculture
Parks/Preserves/OS
Single-Family
Research & Development/
Limited Manufacturing – 7.5%
Open Space/Controlled
Development/Agriculture – 15%
Public
Facilities
Commercial – 3%
L-5
Embracing the New Century
Goals, Policies, and Programs
LOCAL LAND USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
GOAL L-1:A Well-designed, Compact City, Providing Residents
and Visitors with Attractive Neighborhoods, Work Places,
Shopping Districts, Public Facilities, and Open Spaces.
The amount of urban land in Palo Alto in 2010 will remain essentially the same as it is today,
with growth occurring through infill and redevelopment. In a community survey conducted
during the Comprehensive Plan process, the community overwhelmingly reaffirmed its com-
mitment to the protection of the baylands and foothills. The emphasis on infill brings oppor-
tunities for positive change but also the need to protect the qualities that are important to Palo Alto.
Extent of Urban Development
POLICY L-1:
Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently
developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban
service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain
undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open
space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent
with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped Baylands
northeast of Highway 101 as open space.
This is a continuation of existing City policy. Any future expansion of the Stanford Research
Park will be in the form of infill development rather than expansion. The City’s Urban Service
Area boundary identifies areas that may be developed during the term of this Plan.
POLICY L-2:
Maintain an active cooperative working relationship with Santa Clara County
and Stanford University regarding land use issues.
PROGRAM L-1:
Maintain and update as appropriate the 1985 Land Use Policies Agreement
that sets forth the land use policies of the City, Santa Clara County and
Stanford University with regard to Stanford unincorporated lands.
PROGRAM L-2A:
City staff will monitor Stanford development proposals and traffic conditions
within the Sand Hill Road Corridor and annually report to the Planning Com-
mission and City Council.
PROGRAM L-2B:
City staff will review development proposals within the Airport Influence
Area to ensure consistency with the guidelines of the Palo Alto Airport Com-
prehensive Land Use Plan, and when appropriate, will refer development
proposals to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission for re-
view and comment.
See Map L-2 for the Urban
Service Area boundary
and the Urban Growth
boundary
See also Goal N-1 and
associated policies and
programs
See Land Use Map L-3:
Stanford Lands
See Santa Clara County
General Plan Policies
U-ST1 through U-ST 10
regarding county regu-
lation of Stanford lands
See Land Use Map L-2: for
the Airport Influence Area
Ne
w
T
e
x
t
f
o
r
p
a
g
e
L
-
5
Ne
w
T
e
x
t
f
o
r
p
a
g
e
L
-
5
L-6
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Development Limitations on
Unincorporated Stanford Lands
A 1985, three-party interjurisdictional agreement with the City, Santa
Clara County and Stanford University, identifies the land use polices for
lands owned by Stanford and located within unincorporated Santa Clara
County. Stanford’s General Use Permit, issued by Santa Clara County,
establishes building area, population limits and some mitigation mea-
sures for development of the unincorporated lands; and, identifies four
sub-areas with special land use controls (See Map L-3). The special area
limitations are:
Area AArea AArea AArea AArea A (Campus frontage along El Camino Real): No development.
Area BArea BArea BArea BArea B (South of Sand Hill Road between Pasteur Drive and Junipero
Serra Boulevard): Until 2021 limited to academic and
recreation fields and related support facilities. Fac-ulty, staff
or student housing may be proposed in a portion along
Campus Drive West.
ArArArArArea Cea Cea Cea Cea C (West of Junipero Serra between Alpine Road and Deer Creek):
Low-intensity academic uses that are compatible with the
open space qualities of the area. Development of any struc-
ture over 5,000 square feet requires a use permit from the
County. Development for income producing purposes, or sale
or lease for nonacademic purposes, would require annexation
to the City.
Area DArea DArea DArea DArea D (Arboretum area along Palm Drive and the Oval):
No development.
See Santa Clara County
General Plan Policies
R-LU68 and R-LU69
regarding Academic
Reserve and Open Space
designation
See Santa Clara County
General Plan Policies C-
GD1, C-GD2, R-GD2 and
R-GD6 regarding
development in rural
unincorporated areas
L-7
Embracing the New Century
See Santa Clara County
Comprehensive Land Use
Plan for the Palo Alto
Airport
Development Limitations on Lands
Within the Airport Influence Area (AIA)
The Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport (PAO CLUP)
provides guidelines to ensure compatible non-airport land use and development within the
Airport Influence Area (AIA). These guidelines limit concentrations of people in areas
susceptible to aircraft accidents and restrict new structures and activities that would
interfere with navigable space. They were adopted into the City's Comprehensive Plan in
2009.
Applicability
• The PAO CLUP guidelines do not apply to existing development.
• All new development must be consistent with the PAO CLUP guidelines for land use
and development.
Consistency Review
Key PAO CLUP maps and tables provide guidance for project review:
• For determining if a proposed use is compatible with regard to safety, refer to:
1. The “Airport Safety Zone Map” which divides the AIA into zones based on the
level of danger from airport activities. (Page 3-12)
2. The “Safety Zone Compatibility Guidelines” table, which shows what land
uses are allowed in the each safety zone. (Page 4-8)
• For determining if a proposed use is compatible with regard to noise, refer to:
1. The “2022 Aircraft Noise Contours” map, which divides the AIA into zones
based on the level of noise from airport activities. (Page 3-7)
2. The “Noise Compatibility Guidelines” table, which shows what land uses are
allowed in each noise zone. (Page 4-6)
• For determining if a proposed building meets the height limits, refer to:
1. The “FAR Part 77 Surfaces” map, which shows graduated contours radiating
from the runway. Each contour indicates the maximum allowable structure
height within the contour area. (Page 3-9)
ALUC Review
•The City may refer any proposal to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commis-
sion (ALUC) for review and recommendation.
• Certain types of proposals must be referred to the Santa Clara County ALUC for review.
• The Santa Clara County ALUC may recommend that the City require the subject prop-
erty owner to grant an avigation easement (to the City of Palo Alto) as a condition for
obtaining an entitlement or building permit.
• The Santa Clara County ALUC comments are advisory.
See Land Use Map L-2: for
the Airport Influence Area
See Program L-2B
Mandatory referrals include:
1. Airport Master Plans or amendments
2. Comprehensive Plans or amendments
3. Specific Plans or amendments
4. Zoning /Building Codes or amend-
ments
5. Non-airport development projects
that require a change to the Zoning
Code or the Comprehensive Plan
Voluntary referrals include:
1. Major infrastructure improvements that
would promote urban development.
2. Non-airport development projects that
do not require a change to the Zoning
Code or the Comprehensive Plan but
involve: five or more dwelling units,
high-density uses, or low-mobility uses,
a structure over 200 feet high, or an
increase to the existing square footage
of 50% or more.
Begin New Text for page L-7
End New Text for page L-7
CLUP Criteria for referring proposals (within the AIA) to the ALUC for review:
L-8
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
.
Maintain and Strengthen City Character
POLICY L-3:
Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills
from public streets in the developed portions of the City.
Palo Alto’s backdrop of forested hills to the southwest and San Francisco Bay to the northeast
is a character-defining element of the City. Views of the hills can be seen from many City
streets. They provide a sense of enclosure and a reminder of the City’s proximity to open space
and the natural environment. Views from the baylands are equally striking, taking in the Bay,
the East Bay hills, and the Santa Cruz Mountains. These visual connections are part of what
makes Palo Alto attractive. The design and siting of new buildings should take into account
impact on views, and should frame existing views of the hills, where possible.
POLICY L-4:
Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining
the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning
Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities.
The City’s neighborhoods are varied in character and architectural style, reflecting the stages
of the City’s development as well as the range of incomes and tastes of its residents.
POLICY L-5:
Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.
Scale is the relationship of various parts of the environment to each other, to people, and to the
limits of perception. It is what establishes some neighborhoods or streets as pedestrian-
oriented and others as automobile-oriented. In older portions of Palo Alto, the grid of City
The traditional form and
scale in much of Palo Alto
contributes to the City’s
reputation as a desirable
place to live and work.
See Map L-4 for locations
of major view corridors
and viewsheds
L-9
Embracing the New Century
blocks, small rectangular parcels, and narrow streets establishes a pattern that is generally
pleasant for the pedestrian. The pattern is reinforced by streets that are lined with trees,
residential buildings set back behind front gardens, and buildings typically one to three
stories in height. In the newer portions of Palo Alto—those areas built after 1950—street
patterns and building placement are oriented primarily to the automobile user. In the newer
commercial areas, buildings are usually set behind parking lots located along the street, and
landscaping sometimes provides a visual buffer for the motorist.
PROGRAM L-3:
Maintain and periodically review height and density limits to discourage
single uses that are inappropriate in size and scale to the surrounding uses.
The Citywide fifty foot height limit has been respected in all new development since it was
adopted in the 1970's. Only a few exceptions have been granted for architectural enhance-
ments or seismic safety retrofits to noncomplying buildings.
POLICY L-6:
Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential
and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities.
To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place
zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets
wherever possible.
PROGRAM L-4:
Review and change zoning regulations to promote gradual transitions in the
scale of development where residential districts abut more intense uses.
PROGRAM L-5:
Establish new performance and architectural standards that minimize nega-
tive impacts where land use transitions occur.
PROGRAM L-6:
Revise the City’s Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Service Commercial
(CS) zoning requirements to better address land use transitions.
Since CN and CS zones are frequently located next to residential areas, development standards are
particularly important to ensure compatibility and reduce negative impacts on adjacent land uses.
POLICY L-7:
Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City
welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods.
Commercial Growth Limits
POLICY L-8:
Maintain a limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-residential development
for the nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study, with the understanding that the City Council may
make modifications for specific properties that allow modest additional
growth. Such additional growth will count towards the 3,257,900 maximum.
Not only will the area devoted to urban development remain constant, but new non-residential
growth from 1989 forward will be limited to just over 3.25 million square feet. The total
non-residential development in the city in 1996 is in the range of 25 million square feet. This
amount of growth was determined by the Citywide 1989 Land Use and Transportation Study
See Map L-6 showing
commercial growth
monitoring areas
L-10
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
and was largely implemented through commercial downzoning. This growth limit will be ob-
served citywide for the term of this Plan. Traffic will be monitored to ensure that the intent of
the limit is being achieved, though it is recognized that traffic counts are affected by both
residential and non-residential growth and also by auto use behavior.
PROGRAM L-7:
Establish a system to monitor the rate of non-residential development and
traffic conditions related to both residential and non-residential develop-
ment at key intersections including those identified in the 1989 Citywide
Study and additional intersections identified in the Comprehensive Plan
EIR. If the rate of growth reaches the point where the citywide development
maximum might be reached, the City will reevaluate development policies
and regulations.
PROGRAM L-8:
Limit new non-residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000 square
feet, or 10 percent above the amount of development existing or approved as
of May 1986. Reevaluate this limit when non-residential development approvals
reach 235,000 square feet of floor area.
PROGRAM L-9:
Continue to monitor development, including the effectiveness of the ground
floor retail requirement, in the University Avenue/Downtown area. Keep the
Planning Commission and City Council advised of the findings on an annual
basis.
Mixed Use Areas
POLICY L-9:
Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and
zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that mixed use environments can be interesting and dy-
namic. A new mixed use land use classification has been created to encourage this type of
development in the future. This represents a change from past attitudes that sought to separate
different uses from each other as a means of protecting property values, public safety, and the
quality of life. With proper guidance such concerns can be addressed, allowing a more vital
urban environment to be created.
Parts of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) and the California Avenue/Ventura Area (Cal-Ventura)
have an established pattern of mixed use, with service commercial, light industrial, and hous-
ing in both areas. Continued mixing of land uses is encouraged. These areas are among the few
in the City that are well-suited for light industrial, automotive, and business support services.
Many of these uses should be allowed to continue in the future, augmented by new develop-
ment including multifamily housing. The proximity of these areas to transit and services makes
them excellent locations for both housing and commercial uses.
PROGRAM L-10:
• Create and apply the following four new Mixed Use zoning standards: A
“Live/Work” designation that permits individuals to live on the same site
where they work by allowing housing and other uses such as office, retail,
and light industrial to co-exist in the same building space; and “Retail/
See Goal L- 7 and related
Policies and Programs on
Historic Character
1
INITIAL STUDY
Environmental Checklist and Evaluation for Santa Clara County
File Number: N/A Date: 10/31/2008
Project Type: Land Use Plan / Public APN(s): Multiple
Project Location /
Address
Property located within Airport Influence Area of South County (San Martin) and Palo
Alto Airports. Map Amendment for County
CLUP for SJC Runway 11-29 Safety Zone
definition
GP Designation: Multiple
Owner’s Name County of Santa Clara. Various within
Airport A.I.A’s. Zoning:Multiple
Applicant’s
Name:
Santa Clara County Airport Land Use
Commission Urban Service Areas: PALO ALTO
Project Description
The Project is an amendment to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission’s Land Use Plan
for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports (Land Use Plan) and is undertaken pursuant to the
ALUC’s authority under Public Utilities Code § 21670 et seq. The amendments include: (1) The adoption of two new airport-specific Comprehensive Land Use Plans (“CLUPs”), for South County (San Martin)
Airport and Palo Alto Airport; and (2) a Map amendment of the County-wide CLUP to correct the South
Safety Zone Map for runway 11-29 at San Jose International Airport to reflect a reduction in width and
length in the south Safety Zone.
(1) Adoption of the South County /San Martin Airport and Palo Alto Airport CLUPs-
The new South County and Palo Alto Airport CLUPs (hereafter referred to as “CLUPs”) are intended to be
comprehensive, self-contained CLUPs for each Airport. They include several new policies that are
associated with the following map modifications:
• ALUC referral boundaries ("Airport Influence Areas" or "AIAs")
• 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours
• FAA, FAR Part 77 Surfaces Map
• Airport Safety Zones
The purpose of the CLUPs is to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the
airports and those who use the airports. The CLUPs are established to protect the public from the adverse
effects of small aircraft. Specifically, the CLUPs policies ensure that development adjacent to public-use
airports in Santa Clara County is not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. The implementation of the CLUPs is intended to prevent future incompatible development from encroaching on the Airports and to allow for
development in accordance with the current Airport Master Plan for each Airport.
In formulating the CLUPs, the ALUC establishes policies for the regulation of land use, building height, safety, and noise exposure within areas adjacent to each of the public airports in the County. The four
maps (AIA, Noise Contours, FAR Part 77 and Safety Zones,) are used by the ALUC to determine the
applicability of ALUC policies and compatibility between new uses and airport operations in terms of
noise and safety. The purpose of each of these maps that have new associated policies are described in the
following: Attachment D
2
South County (San Martin) Airport referral boundary (AIA) – The Airport Influence Area (AIA)
defines the area in which the ALUC policies and procedures apply in South County. When the County of
Santa Clara chooses to amend its General Plan, adopt or amend any specific plans, zoning ordinances, or
building regulations, that would affect property within the AIA, the County must first refer the proposed
action to the ALUC. Voluntary referrals can also be made for other types of actions/projects that may be
impacted by the airport operations, such as Building Site Approval, Use Permits or Subdivisions. The new
AIA area has been reduced in size by 90.5 acres, from 6118.1 to 6027.6 total acres. The new AIA has been
mapped to follow property line boundaries at the northwest and southwest corner of the AIA to eliminate
uncertainty in determining if a property will fall within the zone.
Palo Alto Airport referral boundary (AIA) – The Airport Influence Area (AIA), defines the area in
which the ALUC policies and procedures apply in the Palo Alto Area. The proposed Palo Alto Airport
CLUP does not change the area of the AIA.
South County (San Martin) Airport 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours – These maps
delineate the predicted Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) in decibels as a result of airport
operations at South County Airport. If a project is referred to the ALUC and is within the 55, 60, 65, or 70
dBA CNEL Noise Contours, the applicable noise policies from the CLUP would be used to review the
application. The principal source for calculation of the proposed Noise Contours is the FAA modeling
software, which forecasts the annual airport operations. Also, the 2002 California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook, which is published by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, incorporates established
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines for noise standards. The new adopted maps will include
a 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contour, which was not previously used. The existing CLUP only uses a 55 and 60
dBA CNEL Noise Contour. The existing 55 dBA CNEL is approximately 400 acres. The existing 60 dBA
CNEL is approximately 153 acres. The new 55 dBA CNEL includes 1085.7 total acres, which is a net
increase of approximately 685 acres. The new 60 dBA CNEL is 402.6 acres for an approximate increase of
240 acres. The new 65 dBA CNEL is 153 acres and the new 70 dBA CNEL is 59.4 acres, which only
encompasses airport property and highway 101.
Palo Alto Airport 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours – Like the South County noise contours,
these maps delineate the predicted Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) boundary in decibels as a
result of airport operations at Palo Alto Airport. If a project is referred to the ALUC and is within the 55,
60, 65, or 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours, the applicable noise policies would apply. Like the South
County Airport, the principal source for the proposed Noise Contours is the 2002 California Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook. The existing Noise Contours are based on 1995/1996-forcast conditions and use
55, 60, 65, 70 and 75 dBA CNEL Noise Contours. The new adopted maps will only include up to a 70 dBA
CNEL Noise Contour, because the 75 dBA CNEL is entirely located on airport property. Therefore, no
development other than projects on airport property would be affected by the 75 dBA CNEL. According to
County ALUC files, there are no calculated areas within the existing Noise Contours for Palo Alto Airport.
This is likely due to the small size of those contours and their location within the Baylands Conservation
lands as well as airport property. The new 55 dBA CNEL is 2851.78 acres (including the “bubble” area
west of the airport). The new 60 dBA CNEL is 750.7 acres. The new 65 dBA CNEL is 211.0 acres and the
70 dBA CNEL is 107.4 acres.
South County and Palo Alto Airport FAA, FAR Part 77 Surfaces Map - Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, establishes imaginary surfaces for airports and
runways as a means to identify objects that are obstructions to air navigation. Each surface is defined as a
slope-ratio, or at a certain altitude above the airport elevation, measured at Mean Sea Level (MSL).
Projects located within the AIA are evaluated for consistency with the FAR Part 77 height restrictions.
3
This is an FAA map that is updated as necessary as a result of changes in the airport runway(s). It is not a
County or ALUC map. The current CLUPs are using an outdated version of the FAA maps. In 2007, the
ALUC adopted a CLUP amendment to incorporate by reference, the FAA maps currently in effect for each
Airport in the County to avoid the necessity of County-wide CLUP amendments each time the FAA updates
the map as a result of changes to the runways.
Palo Alto and South County Airport Safety Zones – Airport safety zones are established to minimize
exposure to potential airplane hazards. Both the Palo Alto and South County CLUPs use the threshold
adopted by the FAA for positioning the Runway Protection Zones. These areas are depicted on the FAA
approved Airport Layout Plans for each airport. Furthermore, the safety zones defined for the Airports are
based on the guidance for General Aviation Airports with runways less than 4,000 feet in the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002) adopted by the State of California, Department of
Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (“2002 Handbook”) pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 21674.7.
The following describes these safety zones, which are the same for both CLUPs, and represented by Figure
7 in both CLUPs:
Runway Protection Zone
The function of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) is to enhance the protection of people and property on
the ground and aircraft occupants. RPZs should be clear of all objects, structures and activities. The RPZ
as adopted by the airport and the FAA and begins 200 feet from the ends of the runways. It is a trapezoidal
area centered on the extended runway centerline. The size is related to the expected aircraft use and the
visibility minimums for that particular runway.
Turning Sector Defined
A geometric feature defined as a “Turning Sector” bound by some of the safety zones. This feature is
constructed as follows:
Each runway end has a sector, which is bounded on the inside by the extended runway centerline.
The radius of these sectors is 3,000 feet with the center point located 1,000 feet along the runway centerline
from the runway threshold towards the opposite end of the runway.
The arc for the sector is swung away from the opposite runway. The interior angle of the sector is 30
degrees from the extended runway centerline. The two closest turning sector center-points are connected
with a straight line and a tangent line that connects the two associated arcs. The Turning Sector is defined
as the outside bounds of the feature constructed above. There is one Turning Sector for each end of the
runway system.
Inner Safety Zone
The Inner Safety Zone (ISZ) is located within the Turning Sector boundary described above. The ISZ
represents the approach and departure corridors that have the second highest level of exposure to potential
aircraft accidents. The ISZ is centered on the line midway between the runway centerlines starting at the
apex of the Turning Sector boundary and except as noted below, extends to the outer arc of the Turning
Sector boundary. The length of the runway determines the dimensions.
4
Turning Safety Zone
The Turning Safety Zone (TSZ) represents the approach and departure areas that have the third highest
level of exposure to potential aircraft accidents.
Outer Safety Zone
The Outer Safety Zone (OSZ) extends out from the Turning Sector arc. The OSZ is a rectangular area
centered on the line midway between the extended runway centerlines starting at the outer end of the
Turning Sector arc. The length of the runway determines the dimensions. The OSZ for ends of the runways
is a rectangular area 1,300 feet wide and 1,500 feet long at the center, centered on the line midway between
the extended runway centerlines, starting at the outer edge of the ISZ and extending away from the runway
threshold.
Sideline Safety Zone
The Sideline Safety Zone (SSZ) is an area along side and parallel to the runways. This area is not normally
overflown by aircraft except by aircraft losing directional control on takeoff (especially twin-engine
aircraft).
Traffic Pattern Zone
The Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) is within other portions of the airport area that are routinely overflown by
aircraft. The potential for aircraft accidents is relatively low and the need for land use restrictions is
minimal. The TPZ excludes all other zones described above. For both airports, the TPZ is the surface area
underlying the FAR Part 77 Horizontal Surface. The perimeter of the TPZ is constructed by swinging arcs
of 5,000 feet out for the runways from a point 200 feet out from each runway pavement end on the extended
centerline and connecting the arcs with lines tangent to these arcs.
As all safety zones are within the AIA, all general plan amendments, rezoning, specific plans, or
modifications to building regulations for affected properties within the safety zones, would be required to
be reviewed by the ALUC for consistency with the safety policies in the CLUPs.
5
In summary, the Safety Zones for South County and Palo Alto Airports have increased in area as a
consequence of applying the recommendations contained in the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook. The Noise Contours for South County and Palo Alto Airports have increased in area to reflect
the forecast number of aircraft operating at each airport as stated in the current Airport Master Plans for each
Airport. The AIA has been reduced at South County Airport, but has remained unchanged at Palo Alto
Airport.
Also, incorporated into the Amendments is a non-airport-specific CLUP amendment. This amendment is as
follows:
(2) Map Amendment for the South Safety Zone dimensions for runway 11-29 at San Jose
International Airport: -
The ALUC amended the County-wide CLUP in 2005 to include map updates as a result of the lengthening
of runways at San Jose International Airport. In that update, the ALUC approved the original 5,000-foot by
1,500-foot south safety zone for Runway 11-29. However, the text, which describes the dimensions of the
Safety Zones remained unchanged stating a dimension of 990 feet wide by 3,960 feet long.
The ALUC finds that the larger Safety Zone map should not have been re-adopted in the CLUP mapping
update in 2005 and is proposing an amendment of the County-wide CLUP to revise the map of the San Jose
International Airport for the south Safety Zone of runway 11-29 back to 3,960 feet long by 990 feet wide.
6
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use
Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Resources / Recreation Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance None
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further
is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
________________________________________
Signature
___________________________
Date
Mark J Connolly_____________________________
Printed name
___________________________
For
7
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The environmental setting consists of three of the public use airports in Santa Clara County (Palo Alto, San
Jose International, South County Airport), and areas surrounding these airports. With respect to Palo Alto
Airport, the surrounding land uses are the Baylands Conservation Area and a small area developed with
commercial properties immediately east of Highway 101 on Embarcadero Road. With respect to South
County Airport, the surrounding area includes residential property with small areas of publicly owned
property, with Highway 101 bordering the Airport to the east. Land Uses surrounding the Southern area of
San Jose International Airport are mostly commercial properties immediately southwest and a mixture of
medium density residential and commercial properties to the south across Interstate 880/17.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
There are no responsible agencies for this project. The affected airports are within the jurisdiction of the
County of Santa Clara, the City of San Jose and the City of Palo Alto. These jurisdictions may need to
amend their General Plans to be consistent with the proposed CLUPs (if inconsistent). CalTrans Division of
Aeronautics has an advisory role. Pursuant to federal regulations, the FAA adopts maps that are
incorporated by reference in both the County-wide CLUP and the Palo Alto and South County CLUPs.
8
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
A. AESTHETICS
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
SOURCES
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? 2,3,4, 6a,17f
b) Substantially damage scenic resources along
a designated scenic highway? 3, 6a, 17f
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
2,3
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
3,4
e) If subject to ASA, be generally in non-
compliance with the Guidelines for
Architecture and Site Approval?
11
f) If subject to Design Review, be generally in
non-compliance with the Guidelines for Design
Review Approval?
3,4,12
g) Be located on or near a ridgeline visible from
the valley floor? 2,17n
DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South
County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and
Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential impacts to aesthetic resources.
MITIGATION: None Required.
B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer
to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
SOURCE
a) Convert 10 or more acres of farmland
classified as prime in the report Soils of
Santa Clara County to non-agricultural use?
3,23,24,26
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use? 9,21a
c) Conflict with an existing Williamson Act
Contract? 1
d) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
3,4,26
9
DISCUSSION: Approval of the project will not have any potential significant impacts to
agricultural resources. There are numerous Agricultural properties surrounding South County
Airport, including many Williamson Act parcels within the Airport Influence Area. There are no
agricultural properties within the Palo Alto Airport Influence Area. Overall, use of land within
the Palo Alto and South County (San Martin) Airport AIA’s for agricultural purposes is not
inconsistent with the CLUP.
MITIGATION: None Required
C. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
SOURCE
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
5,28
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
5,29
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
5,29
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
5,29
e) Create objectionable odors or dust affecting a
substantial number of people? 5,21, 29, 47
DISCUSSION:
Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San
Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones
maps, will not have any potentially significant air quality impacts, because it will have no direct
or indirect impact on emission sources.
MITIGATION: None Required
10
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
SOURCES
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 7, 17b, 17o,
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
3,7, 8a, 17b,
17e, 33
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or
tributary to an already impaired water body, as
defined by section 303(d) of the Clean Water
Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
3, 7, 17n, 32
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
1,7, 17b, 17o
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan?
3,4
f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources:
i) Tree Preservation Ordinance [Section C16]? 1,3,31
ii) Wetland Habitat [GP Policy, R-RC 25-30]? 3, 8a
iii) Riparian Habitat [GP Policy, R-RC 31-41]? 3, 8a,
DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South
County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and
Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential impacts on any biological resources. The project
does not foster development or other activities that could impact species or their habitat.
MITIGATION: None Required
11
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
SOURCE
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant
to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
3, 16, 19, 40,
41
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource as
defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
3, 19, 40, 41,
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
2,3,4,,40,41
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? 2, 40,41
e) Change or affect any resource listed in the
County Historic Resources Database?
16
DISCUSSION:
Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San
Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones
maps, will not have any potential impacts to cultural resources. The project does not foster
development or other activities that would impact cultural resources.
MITIGATION: None Required
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
SOURCE
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
6, 17L, 43
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 6, 17c,18b
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? 6, 17c, 17n,
18b
iv) Landslides? 6, 17L, 118b
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? 6, 2, 3
12
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
2, 3, 17c, 23,
24, 42
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the
report, Soils of Santa Clara County, creating
substantial risks to life or property?
14,23, 24,
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
3,6, 23,24,
f) Cause substantial compaction or over-covering of
soil either on-site or off-site? 3, 6
g) Cause substantial change in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill?
2, 3, 6, 42
DISCUSSION:
Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San
Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones
maps, will not have any potential impacts to geology and soils because it does not foster
development or other land disturbance activities.
MITIGATION: None Required
G. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT YES NO
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
SOURCE
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
1, 3, 4, 5
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
2, 3, 5
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an
existing or proposed school?
46
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
47
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan referral area or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, or in the vicinity of
a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
3, 22a
13
the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
5, 48
g) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
4
h) Provide breeding grounds for vectors? 1, 3, 5
i) Proposed site plan result in a safety hazard
(i.e., parking layout, access, closed
community, etc.)?
3
j) Involve construction of a building, road or
septic system on a slope of 30% or greater? 1, 3, 17n
k) Involve construction of a roadway greater than
20% slope for a distance of 300' or more?
1, 3, 17n
DISCUSSION:
One of the main purposes of the CLUPs is to help decision makers avoid making land-use
decisions that could possibly increase safety hazards for people residing or working in or around
the airport. Adoption of the CLUPs reduces the risk of airport related hazards within vicinity of
the airport. Therefore, approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and
South County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77,
and Safety Zones maps, will not have any potentially significant impacts on Hazards and
Hazardous Materials.
MITIGATION: None Required
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
SOURCE
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 34, 36
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted?
3, 4
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
3, 17n
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 3
14
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Note
policy regarding flood retention in watercourse
and restoration of riparian vegetation for West
Branch of the Llagas.)
e) Create or contribute increased impervious
surfaces and associated runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
1, 3, 5, 36,
21a
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1, 3, 5
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
3, 18b, 18d
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
3, 18b, 18d
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
2, 3, 4
j) Be located in an area of special water quality
concern (e.g., Los Gatos or Guadalupe
Watershed)?
4, 6a,
k) Be located in an area known to have high levels
of nitrates in well water? 4
l) Result in a septic field being constructed on
soil where a high water table extends close to
the natural land surface?
3
m) Result in a septic field being located within 50
feet of a drainage swale; 100 feet of any well,
water course or water body or 200 feet of a
reservoir at capacity?
1, 3
DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South
County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and
Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential impacts to hydrology and water quality, because
it does not foster development or other activities that would affect ground water or
drainage/runoff.
MITIGATION: None Required
I. LAND USE
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
SOURCE
a) Physically divide an established community? 2, 4
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with 8a, 9, 18a
15
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with special policies:
i) San Martin &/or South County? 1, 3, 8a, 20
ii) Los Gatos Specific Plan or Lexington
Watershed? 1, 3, 8a, 22c
iii) New Almaden Historical Area/Guadalupe
Watershed? 1, 8a
iv) Stanford? 8a, 21
v) City of Morgan Hill Urban Growth
Boundary Area? 8a, 17a
vi) West Valley Hillsides Preservation Area? 1, 8a
DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South
County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and
Safety Zones maps, will not have any potentially significant land use impacts
In developing the CLUPs, the ALUC and County staff have worked closely with the City of Palo
Alto and reviewed County policies. The policies included in the CLUP will not be in conflict
with any policies or regulations after the City of Palo Alto and County of Santa Clara amend
their General Plans, if necessary and in accordance with the State law, Public Utilities Code
Section 21679.5. Each of the two CLUPs include the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa
Clara General Plan Land Use and Zoning maps for reference to current Land Use designations
and Zoning around the Airport. In order to maintain consistent land use between the CLUP
policies and the City and County General Plans, State law requires that within 180 days upon
receipt of an ALUC plan amendment; the City and County shall amend their General Plan to be
consistent with the CLUP. The areas in which it is reasonably foreseeable that the City or the
County may need to make amendments after approval of the ALUC CLUPs are the following:
1. Ordinance requiring avigation easements throughout the AIA
(Policy G-5 of the CLUP)
2. Ordinance requiring rental tenant notification of the proximity to the airport throughout the
AIA. (Policy N-4 of the CLUP)
3. Ordinance requiring max 45 dB interior for residential reconstruction within the CNEL
Noise Contours. (Policy R-2 of the CLUP)
4. Specific General Plan land use restrictions to reflect the RPZ, ISZ and TSZ requirements
(Table 4-2 of the CLUP, safety compatibility guidelines).
As discussed below under Section K (Population and Housing), the project will not displace
growth or otherwise directly or indirectly result in any other adverse land use impacts. Items 1-3
above will not conflict with any applicable land use plans. Item number four above will involve
inclusion of the following safety policies within the respective safety zones:
16
Safety
Zone
Maximum
Population Density
Open Area
Requirements
Land Use
Runway Protection
Zone – RPZ
-0-
(No people allowed)
100 percent
(No structures
allowed)
Agricultural activities, roads, open low-
landscaped areas. No trees, telephone poles or
similar obstacles. Occasional short-term
transient vehicle parking is permitted.
Inner Safety Zone –
ISZ
Nonresidential,
maximum (60 people
Palo Alto, 40 people
for South County) per
acre (includes open
area and parking area
required for the
building’s occupants)
30 percent of gross
area open. No
structures or
concentrations of
people between or
within 100 feet of the
extended runway
centerlines.
Very low-density residential. 10 acres or more
per dwelling unit - Nonresidential uses should be
activities that attract relatively few people. No
shopping centers, restaurants, theaters, meeting
halls, stadiums, multi-story office buildings,
labor-intensive manufacturing plants,
educational facilities, day care facilities,
hospitals, nursing homes or similar activities.
No hazardous material facilities (gasoline
stations, etc.).
Turning Safety Zone -
TSZ
Nonresidential,
maximum (100
people in Palo Alto,
80 people for South
County), per acre
(includes open area
and parking area
required for the
building’s occupants)
20 percent of gross
area
Minimum dimensions:
300 ft by 75 ft parallel
to the runway(s).
Very low-density residential, 5 acres or more per
dwelling unit.
No regional shopping centers, theaters, meeting
halls, stadiums, buildings with more than three
above ground habitable floors, schools, day care
centers, hospitals, nursing homes or similar
activities. No hazardous material facilities
(gasoline stations, etc.).
Outer Safety Zone –
OSZ
Nonresidential,
maximum (100
people for Palo Alto,
80 people for South
County) per acre
(includes open area
and parking area
required for the
building’s occupants)
20 percent of gross
area
Rural areas - allow residential, 2 acres or more
per dwelling unit.
Urban areas - allow residential infill to existing
density.
No regional shopping centers, theaters, meeting
halls, stadiums, buildings with more than three
above ground habitable floors, schools, large day
care centers, hospitals, nursing homes or similar
activities.
No above ground bulk fuel storage.
Sideline Safety Zone -
SSZ
Nonresidential,
maximum (150
people for Palo Alto,
100 for South
County) per acre
(includes open area
and parking area
required for the
building’s occupants)
30 percent of gross
area
Residential - 5 acres or more per dwelling unit.
No regional shopping centers, theaters, meeting
halls, stadiums, buildings with more than three
above ground habitable floors, schools, large day
care centers, hospitals, nursing homes or similar
activities. No above ground bulk fuel storage.
Traffic Pattern Zone –
TPZ
No Limit 10 percent of gross
area every one-half
mile
Residential – No Limit.
No sports stadiums or similar uses with very
high concentration of people.
Amendment of the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County General Plans to include these
safety policies will bring the respective General Plans into consistency with the ALUC CLUPs.
Therefore, approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South
County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and
Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential land use impacts.
17
MITIGATION: None Required
J. NOISE
IMPACTS
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
SOURCE
a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
8a, 13, 22a,
45
b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
13
c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
1, 2, 5
d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
1, 2, 5
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan referral area or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, or private airstrip
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
1, 5, 22a
DISCUSSION: One of the primary purposes of the CLUPs is to avoid locating noise-sensitive
receptors near airports and reduce noise impacts for persons occupying areas surrounding the
Airports.
In January 1992, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approved an FAR Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Program (NCP) for Palo Alto Airport and forwarded it to the FAA for review.
South County Airport has never had an FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP), due
to the limited potential for adverse noise impacts in the rural area surrounding the Airport.
The NCP forecasts a reduction in the CNEL noise contours if the policies recommended in the
NCP are implemented. However, following the recommendations in the Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics 2002 Handbook, the proposed Palo Alto CLUP uses more conservative NCP 2007
noise contour information, while the South County CLUP uses the noise contours calculated
from the number of aircraft operations included in the last adopted Airport Master Plan for South
County Airport.
18
SOUTH COUNTY NOISE EXPOSURE
The 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours based on the 2022 forecast aircraft operations
are illustrated on Figure 5 of the South County CLUP (attached) and discussed below:
The 70 dBA aircraft noise contour is completely contained within the Airport boundaries and
doesn’t affect privately owned land.
The 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour is completely contained within the Airport boundaries
except to the northwest where it extends into the County Maintenance Yard and to the east side
of the airport, where it extends east of the freeway by about 400 feet to the on ramp from the
CHP inspection station.
The 60 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour is mostly on airport or public property and extends
from the CHP inspection station toward Masten Avenue, past Church Avenue, then to the
northern hangars along Murphy Avenue. This contour then continues northwest just east of
Llagas Creek, north to just north of where the creek turns west, then crosses Murphy Avenue to
the intersection of Sycamore and San Martin Avenues, then south along Sycamore Avenue to
just northwest of the CHP inspection station. The land east of Highway 101 is generally
commercial and rural residential properties and the land northwest of the airport is generally
rural residential.
The 55 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour is generally bounded by Llagas Avenue on the east,
northwest to about 1000 feet northwest of the Middle Avenue, Highway 101 intersection, then
southeast along Sycamore Avenue to the west bend in the Little Llagas Creek then to the end of
Mammini Court, crossing San Martin Avenue midway between Mammini Court and Columbet
Avenue, then to Little Llagas Creek at Moreno Court, then along the creek to the intersection
with Llagas Creek up Llagas creek to along Llagas Avenue. The majority of the land between the
60 dB and the 55 dB contours is rural residential.
PALO ALTO NOISE EXPOSURE
The 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours based on the 2022 forecast aircraft operations
are illustrated on Figure 5 (attached) of the Palo Alto CLUP and discussed below.
The 70 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour is generally contained within the Airport boundaries
except for the northwest end of the airport, where it extends about 1900 feet beyond the airport
boundary on the extended runway centerline over into the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve in
San Mateo County.
The 65-dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour extends beyond the airport boundaries in all directions
and covers the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, and the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve in
San Mateo County.
The 60-dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour extends beyond the airport boundaries in all directions
and covers the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve and the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course,
except for a portion to the west and northwest that extends about 500 feet west of the Grant
Boundary and out along the extended runway center line to about 2300 feet northwest of Bay
Road in East Palo Alto in San Mateo County.
19
The 55-dBA extends beyond the airport boundaries and includes a secondary contour east of the
airport, where the 55 dBA CNEL is bounded between both 60 dBA CNEL contours over the
Baylands (see figure 5). The contour extends west into the Cities of East Palo Alto and Palo
Alto, the north into Menlo Park and unincorporated San Mateo County. Then as the contour
moves east it is entirely located over the Baylands, and South the contour extends into
unincorporated Santa Clara County Baylands area. The northern area of the contour remains in
unincorporated Santa Clara County Baylands area, until it connects back to the City of Palo Alto
along the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course.
It should be noted that where exposed to noise at or above the 60-dB CNEL level, the California
Building Code, Section 1208A.8.3 requires an acoustical analysis of proposed residential
structures, other than detached single-family dwellings, to achieve an indoor noise level of 45-dB
CNEL. Therefore, the 55-dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour is inconsequential and is included in
the CLUPs as a reference. Although the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara have
outdoor noise standards, exterior noise levels at 55-dBA are not a significant noise impact.
Projects referred to the ALUC that are within the noise contours of these CLUPs would be
reviewed for consistency with the noise policies in the respective CLUP. If the adopted
thresholds are exceeded, projects located within the respective CNEL Noise Contours receive
recommended mitigation for noise attenuation to reduce the affect of airplane noise on the
subject properties.
Policy N-4 for the proposed Palo Alto and South County CLUP states:
No residential construction shall be permitted within the 65 dBA CNEL contour boundary unless
it can be demonstrated that the resulting interior sound levels will be less than 45 dBA CNEL
and there are no outdoor patios or outdoor activity areas associated with the residential project.
All property owners within the 65 dBA CNEL contour boundary who rent or lease their property
for residential use shall include in their rental/lease agreement with the tenant, a statement
advising that they (the tenants) are living within a high noise area and the exterior noise level is
predicted to be greater than 65 dBA CNEL.
Policy N-5 for the proposed Palo Alto and South County CLUP states:
Residential construction will not be permitted in the area between the 60 dB CNEL contour
boundary and the 65 dB CNEL contour boundary unless it can be demonstrated that the
resulting interior sound level will be no greater than 45 dB CNEL.
Commercial or industrial uses are deemed generally acceptable in the 60-65dBA CNEL Contour
boundaries, but noise attenuation is suggested. High-occupancy uses such as churches, libraries,
schools and auditoriums are generally unacceptable. There are no existing high occupancy uses
such as schools or libraries that partially lie within the 60 dBA CNEL Noise Contour around
Palo Alto Airport. The closest use may be the instance of the Palo Alto Golf Course Driving
range being used at full capacity. Intermittent noise from aircraft could possibly disrupt some
golf school or lesson activities. However, given the intensity of that use, the noise disruption
would be a less than significant impact because it is a recreational use.
At South County Airport the predominant uses are rural residential and agricultural. However,
churches may be allowed with a Use Permit within the area of the 55, 60 and 65 dBA CNEL
noise contours. There are also commercial stables that host a variety of animals and agricultural
20
events as well as animal kennels with medium to high occupancy. However, the CLUP would
only affect new uses within these noise contours and any subsequent development or
redevelopment would include a recommendation for noise insulation.
Overall, the adoption of the CLUPs and associated maps do not create noise; rather reflect on-
going noise exposure for areas surrounding the airports and act to protect the receptors from that
noise exposure. Also, the new noise contours serve as a beneficial impact to the communities by
discouraging new residential and other noise-sensitive uses such as churches, schools, libraries
and auditoriums, in areas with high noise levels adjacent to public use airports.
Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South County (San
Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and Safety Zones
maps, will not have any negative noise impacts.
MITIGATION: None Required
K. POPULATION AND HOUSING
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
SOURCE
a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1, 3, 4, 54, 55
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing or people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
1, 2, 3, 4
DISCUSSION: Approval of the project would not induce growth, nor would it displace
substantial numbers of existing housing or people.
This discussion concerns possible direct and indirect “growth inducing impacts” or secondary
effects associated with potentially displacing new development within the new AIA, CNEL and
Safety Zones to other areas, which could thus result in secondary environmental impacts (air
quality, transportation, agriculture).
A project could displace development and induce growth in the surrounding environment if it
would create barriers to population growth in a certain areas that currently allow new
development to occur.
The Airport Land Use Commission serves as a policy making body for lands around County
Airports, and makes land use consistency determinations for certain types of land use approvals
which occur within its referral area, also known as the Airport Influence Area (AIA). This
includes the review of modifications to a local agency’s general plan, any specific plans, zoning
ordinances, or building regulations, which would affect property within the AIA. If the ALUC
21
determines that a project or policy under its review is inconsistent with the policies contained in
its Land Use Plan, including policies applicable to noise and safety, the referring agency may
only approve the project if it overrides the ALUC’s determination by a 2/3 vote of the entire
legislative body. Theoretically, if an ALUC referral boundary (AIA) was to significantly expand
in size, or the policies within the existing AIA were to become significantly ore restrictive, it
could affect a substantial portion of land and subsequent determinations of inconsistency by the
ALUC on new projects or policies could potentially displace new development that would
otherwise occur within the affected zones. However, in the case of both proposed CLUPs, no
expansion of the AIAs is proposed. In fact, the AIA for South County Airport is being reduced
in size.
In order to evaluate the possibility for this occurrence in association with the proposed project,
GIS maps were prepared to identify the affected areas and compared the amount of land that
could be affected by the adoption of the CLUPs. Specifically, the amount of vacant land with in
the Airport AIAs was obtained to determine the reasonably foreseeable land that could be
developed to determine if development could be displaced. As previously stated, the CLUPs do
not affect existing development. These maps and analysis are discussed below:
ALUC Referral Boundaries (AIA): Figure 8 of the CLUPs shows the AIA with the City and
County Zoning designations within the AIA. The total amount of land affected by the new
ALUC Referral boundary for South County Airport is 6027.6 acres, which has a reduction of
90.5 acres in the area from 6118.1 acres within the AIA. At Palo Alto Airport, there is no
change to the area of the AIA. The inclusion the AIA in the CLUPs does not, by itself, have any
potential for displacement effects because the proposed CLUP does not include any policies that
would preclude or significantly discourage any land uses simply based on their location within
the AIA.
55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours: Figure 5, the Noise Contour maps, delineate
the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) boundary of the respective decibels as a result
forecast operations at the Airports. The calculation is reflective of the 2022 Aircraft Noise
Contours for both of the proposed CLUPs. The proposed new maps will include 55,60, 65 and
70 dBA CNEL Noise Contour for both CLUPs. The following is an analysis of the areas
covered at each Airport by the proposed Noise Contours:
South County Airport:
At South County Airport, the 70 dBA aircraft noise contour is completely contained within the
Airport boundaries. Similarly, the 65 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour is completely contained
within the Airport boundaries except to northwest where it extends into the County Maintenance
Yard and to the east side of the airport, where it extends east of the freeway by about 400 feet to
the on ramp from the CHP inspection station. The proposed 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contour
encompasses 59.4 Acres. The new 65 dBA CNEL Noise Contour is 153.0 Acres. Because both
of these noise contours are located either on Airport property, County property or Freeway right-
of-ways, there is no ability for noise policies for these noise contours to displace development.
The 55, 60 and part of the 65-dBA CNEL contours are located outside the Airport property. If a
project is referred to the ALUC and is within the 55, 60 or 65 dBA CNEL Noise Contours, the
applicable noise policies would apply to protect citizens from the impacts of aircraft noise.
22
With regard to the 55 and 60 dBA Noise Contours, the new 55 dBA CNEL includes 1,085.7
acres. The old 55dBA CNEL encompasses approximately 410 acres for a net increase of 675
acres. However, since the California Building Code, Section 1208A.8.3 requires an acoustical
analysis of proposed residential structures, other than detached single-family dwellings, to
achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dB, the ability for the any noise policies for the 55dBA
CNEL contour to displace housing and cause secondary impacts is a less than significant impact.
The new 60 dBA CNEL Noise Contour encompasses 402.6 acres. The old 60 dBA CNEL Noise
Contour is approximately 160 acres, for a net increase of 242 acres.
Analysis of the Santa Clara County General Plan designations in place at the time of the South
County CLUP adoption shows that a majority of the properties located within the area of the
noise contours are already developed with Medium/Low density residential uses. An analysis
was prepared by the County of Santa Clara to calculate the amount of vacant land, which would
be affected by the new CNEL contours. Based on the analysis, there is a total of approximately
301 acres of vacant land that could be developed within the noise contours, which could
potentially be affected by the modification of the ALUC maps. The majority of which is Santa
Clara Valley Water District land, State owned land or Airport owned property. An example of
how the expanded noise contours affect physical building proposals is outlined in table 4-1 of the
South County Airport CLUP. Although the area of the noise contours increases, the noise
contours by themselves do not displace development, they just require noise mitigation.
Palo Alto Airport:
At Palo Alto, the 70 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour is generally contained within the Airport
boundaries except for the northwest end of the airport, where it extends about 1900 feet beyond
the airport boundary on the extended runway centerline over into the Palo Alto Baylands Nature
Preserve in San Mateo County, and encompasses 108 acres. However, the 65-dBA CNEL
aircraft noise contour extends beyond the airport boundaries in all directions but is over the Palo
Alto Municipal Golf Course, and the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve in San Mateo County.
The 60 and 65 dBA CNEL contours are located outside the Airport properties. If a project is
referred to the ALUC and is within the 60 or 65 dBA CNEL Noise Contours, the applicable
noise policies would apply to protect citizens from the impacts of aircraft noise. The new 65
dBA CNEL noise contour encompasses 211 acres, for a net increase of 51 acres. The new
60 dBA CNEL Noise Contour is 750.7 acres, for a net increase of approximately 230 acres.
Both of the 55-dBA CNEL noise contours encompass 2851.78 (secondary contour between the
60 dBA contour). Analysis of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designations in place at
the time of the CLUP adoption shows that almost all of the properties in the expanded Noise
contours are located within the Baylands Conservation area, which is a Nature Preserve area.
The exception being a small area on Embarcadero Road to the west of the airport between
highway 101, which is designated Commercial and Research / Office Park, which is already
developed. However, a very slight corner of the 55 dBA CNEL encroaches within area. The
remainders of the noise contours are located within San Mateo County to the north or Santa
Clara County Baylands areas to the south. Similar to the South County CLUP, policies for the
55 dBA CNEL do not affect Commercial areas.
23
An analysis was prepared by the County of Santa Clara to calculate the amount of vacant land
that would be affected by the new CNEL contours surrounding Palo Alto Airport. The definition
of “vacant” land, as indicated by Assessor’s records, is that land which has a land value and
improvement value of $0. Based on the analysis, there is no vacant land that can be developed
within the expanded area that could be affected by the modification of the ALUC maps, because
all the vacant land is Baylands Conservation land. Although the area of the noise contours
increases, the noise contours by themselves do not displace development, they just require noise
mitigation.
FAR Part 77: The FAR Part 77 map is a Federal Aviation Administration map that identifies
objects that are potential obstructions to navigation. The ALUC uses the map to establish
guidelines for the height of structures around the airport. The FAR Part 77 map itself has no
impacts on population and housing.
Safety Zones: As shown in figure 7, the proposed Safety Zones are physically very different
than the existing safety zones in the County-wide CLUP. This is the result of the Caltrans-
Division of Aeronautics 2002 Handbook, and guidelines that encourage CLUPs to provide more
detailed safety zones. An example of how the expanded safety zones affect physical building
proposals is outlined in table 4-2 of both of the CLUPs. The table provides maximum density
and open space requirements for land uses within the safety zones, rather than prohibiting
specific uses within the safety zones, with the exception of the Runway Protection Zone.
Pages 3-13 to 3-14 of the CLUPs outline the definitions of the safety zones. The safety zones
use symmetrical areas and are exclusive in their coverage. In other words the land in the Turning
Safety Zone does not include land within the Inner Safety Zone. The total amount of land
affected by the proposed safety zones compared to the area of the existing safety zones is
outlined in the analysis below:
South County Airport:
Traffic Pattern = 2,514.5 Acres excluding other safety areas. (Total of all other safety zones
except Traffic Pattern Zone 283.2 Acres). Overall, there is a total of 2,797.7 acres of Safety
Zone area.
Total of Existing Safety Zone is approximately 240 acres
(Note that approximately 18 acres of new Safety Zone area is located on airport property).
Palo Alto Airport:
The Traffic Pattern Zones and the Sideline Safety Zones are smaller than South County Airport
because the runway is shorter. However, all other safety zones are the same size.
Traffic Pattern = 2,048 Acres (Total of all other safety Zones except Traffic Pattern Zone 117
Acres), for an overall total of 2,165 acres.
Total Existing Safety Zones = 120.5 ac*.
24
(* Note there is no North Safety Zone in the existing Palo Alto CLUP because the area is within
the Jurisdiction of the County of San Mateo, where the Santa Clara County ALUC policies do
not apply).
Although for Palo Alto, some of the safety zone area is located within San Mateo County, there
is a total of 360.5 acres of existing safety zone area between both airports, whereas, the
combined area of the new safety zone area for both airports is 5,595.4 acres.
San Jose International Airport runway 11-29
At San Jose International Airport, the reduction in the area of the south safety zone for runway
11-29 from 5000 feet long by 1,500 feet wide to 3,960 feet long to 990 feet wide has no
population displacement impacts.
Summary & Analysis:
Airport Influence Areas (AIAs)
The intent of the adoption of the CLUPs is not to displace development, but to develop policies
for compatible development in areas surrounding the airports. The north portion of the AIA for
the Palo Alto Airport follows San Francisco Creek and the Santa Clara/ San Mateo County line.
The majority of land surrounding the Palo Alto Airport cannot be developed, because most of the
land is located within the Palo Alto Baylands conservation area. The proposed CLUP has no
proposed change to the size of the AIA. In the case of South County Airport, there is a mixture
of developed and undeveloped land. The total amount of land affected by the new ALUC AIA
for South County Airport is 6027.6 acres, which is a reduction of 90.5 acres in the area from
6118.1 acres in the current County-wide CLUP. The inclusion the AIA in the CLUPs does not,
by itself, have any potential for displacement effects because the proposed CLUP does not
include any policies that would preclude or significantly discourage any land uses simply based
on their location within the AIA. Since existing development is not be affected by the
implementation of the CLUPs, residential infill development within the AIAs in the form of
additions or new dwellings, will only trigger an Avigation Easement on the property, not
restrictions on development. An Avigation Easement is simply an easement to convey to
property owners that airplanes will be flying overhead.
There are no new lands that could be potentially affected by the adoption of the new CLUPs, as
there could be if the ALUC was proposing to increase the size of the AIAs. In the case of both
of the proposed CLUPs for South County and Palo Alto, a majority of the vacant land that can be
developed within the AIA’s falls outside of the CNEL noise contours and Safety Zones where no
development prohibitions apply. Within these areas (the majority of lands affected through the
map modifications), ALUC policies are limited to height restrictions consistent with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces, and the recordation of
Avigation Easements. As such, the possibility of influencing development and the displacement
of new growth in this area is minimal.
There is no increase to the size of the AIA for South County and Palo Alto Airports. The amount
of new lands within the ALUC AIA as a percentage of total acreage within the City of Palo Alto
and the County of Santa Clara is minimal. As such, the influence of ALUC policies on land use
development and population growth in general in these jurisdictions would not be significant.
CNELs
25
All of the CNEL Noise Contours have increased in size from what is in the current County-wide
CLUP for both Airports. The increase in the size of the CNEL noise contours is a result of two
possible factors; One is due to a more precise modeling of the average noise measurements than
was previously available. The other is use of more recent forecast of aircraft operations.
There is 301 acres of vacant land within all four Noise Contours that encompass 1,700 acres at
South County Airport. However, all of the vacant land within these Noise Contours is owned by
the Santa Clara Valley Water District, State or by the Airport itself. Therefore, the increase in
Noise Contour area for both Airports has no negative affects on land that can be developed.
There is a total of 3,921.5 new acres of Noise contours at Palo Alto Airport, with no technical
vacant land due to the Baylands conservation area. Overall, the potential to displace
development in the areas is less than significant. This is because the CLUP policies only affect
noise mitigation for new development. Also, the increase in area of the CNEL Noise Contours
as a percentage of total acreage within the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara is
minimal.
SAFETY ZONES
South County Airport:
There are four new Turning Safety Zones (TSZ), two new Runway Protection Zones (RPZ), two
new Inner Safety Zones (ISZ), two new Outer Safety Zones (OSZ) and two new Sideline Safety
Zones (SSZ) that have a total of 231 acres of vacant land within them. When including the
Traffic Pattern Zone, there is a total of 473 acres of vacant land that includes all of the CLUP
safety Zones. The current South County Airport Safety Zones are approximately 120 acres at the
end of each runway for a total of approximately 240 acres and are only comprised of an Inner
and Outer Safety Zone area.
The Turning Safety Zones CLUP policies allow for 80 people per acre for non-residential
development, and very low-density residential development of five dwelling units per acre. The
County of Santa Clara General Plan designations in this area is entirely Rural Residential, with
the exception of the south west corner which is designated Other open Public Lands. This is land
owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and used for drainage or percolation ponds. All
of the vacant land within the TSZs is public, or Airport owned property. Overall, the County
General Plan and Zoning designations are more restrictive than the CLUP policies with respect
to height, with the exception of the area, which is designated Transportation on Airport property.
The area of land designated Transportation extends well beyond the airport boundaries beyond
San Martin Avenue to the north and down to Church Avenue to the south. The Land Use
designation of Transportation includes policies for the affordace of future vehicle and aircraft
transportation needs. However, this area has a County Zoning designation of A-20 (Agriculture,
with a 20 acre minimum). Within the A-20 Zoning District, single family homes could be built,
where the South County CLUP would not allow this on the Airport, within the Sideline Safety
Zones or Runway Protection Zones.
The Runway Protection Zones, located to the north and south of the runway currently have no
structural encroachments. The proposed CLUP policies state that this is a “No Build Zone. The
Airport owns this land. Therefore, there is no potential for housing to be displaced in this area
and is a less than significant impact to Population and housing.
26
In the Inner Safety Zones all of the vacant land is owned by either by the Airport or the County.
Although the CLUP policies are more restrictive than the General Plan and Zoning designations,
the land cannot be developed because it is also under ownership of the airport or the County.
Therefore, the potential of the project to displace development on the area is a less-than-
significant impact.
In the Sideline Safety Zones, very low density residential uses are allowed at 5 acres or more per
dwelling unit according to the CLUP. However, no regional shopping centers, theaters, meeting
halls, stadiums, buildings with more than three above ground habitable floors, schools, large day
care centers, hospitals, nursing homes or similar activities are allowed. Also, no above ground
bulk fuel storage is allowed. In the Case of South County, all of the land within the SSZ is either
owned by the airport, or located on Highway 101. Therefore, there is no functional ability for
development in this area. Thus, the potential to displace development in this area is less than
significant.
Within the Traffic Pattern Safety Zone Boundary, there is 242 acres of vacant land. There are
six separate County General Plan designations within this zone including Major Public Facilities
where a County Government Center is located west of Monterey Road between Church and San
Martin Avenue, which has three to four sports fields. Also, at the corner of Highland Avenue
and Monterey Road there is a South Valley Medical Center. The South County CLUP states that
No sports stadiums or similar uses with very high concentration of people are allowed. Although
the proposed CLUP may be more restrictive than the County General Plan, these developments
exist and are not affected by the new CLUP policies. All of the other County General Plan
designations are more restrictive in terms of density and allowed uses than the proposed South
County CLUP policies. Therefore, the potential to displace development in this area is less than
significant.
Palo Alto Airport:
For the Palo Alto Airport, there are also four new Turning Safety Zones (TSZ), two new Runway
Protection Zones (RPZ), two new Inner Safety Zones (ISZ), two new Outer Safety Zones (OSZ)
and two new Sideline Safety Zones (SSZ). The land within the Santa Clara County portion of
the AIA for Palo Alto Airport is either developed in a commercial / office park area on
Embarcadero Road to the west of the airport, or is within the Baylands Conservation area and
cannot be developed.
Only a small portion of the southwest Turning Safety Zones (TSZ) encroached into the
commercial / office park area on Embarcadero Road. The rest of the area is located within the
Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ), which has no limit on Residential population density and does not
allow sports stadiums or similar uses with very high concentration of people. CLUP policies for
the TSZ allow for 100 people per acre for non-residential development, and very low-density
residential development of five dwelling units per acre (in the event of mixed-use development).
If a large mixed-use project was proposed in this isolated area, the project could be in conflict
with the Palo Alto Airport CLUP, but that cannot be predicted. Overall, the City of Palo Alto
General Plan and Zoning are more restrictive than the CLUP policies Therefore, the potential to
displace development in this area is less than significant.
27
San Jose International Airport:
The ALUC is proposing a map amendment for the South Safety Zone dimensions for runway 11-
29 at San Jose International Airport. This amendment will reduce the size of the safety zone
map, so there will be no potential displacement impacts.
MITIGATION: None Required
L. PUBLIC SERVICES
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
i) Fire Protection? 1, 3, 5
ii) Police Protection? 1, 3, 5
iii) School facilities? 1, 3, 5
iv) Parks? 1, 3, 5
v) Other public facilities? 1, 3, 5
DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South
County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and
Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential impacts to public services.
MITIGATION: None Required
M. RESOURCES AND RECREATION
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
SOURCE
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the state?
1, 2, 3, 6, 44
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site as
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
1, 2, 3, 6,8a
c) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and 1, 2, 4, 5
28
regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
d) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
1, 3, 4, 5
e) Be on, within or near a public or private park,
wildlife reserve, or trail or affect existing or
future recreational opportunities?
17h, 21a
f) Result in loss of open space rated as high
priority for acquisition in the “Preservation
20/20” report?
27
DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South
County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and
Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential impacts on recreational facilities or mineral
resources.
MITIGATION: None Required
N. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
SOURCE
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in
a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio, or
congestion at intersections)?
1, 4, 5, 6, 7,
49, 53
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
6, 49, 50, 53
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
5, 6, 7, 53
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
3, 5, 6,7, 53
e) Result in inadequate emergency access ? 1, 3, 5, 48, 53
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 52, 53
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
8a, 21a
h) Not provide safe access, obstruct access to
nearby uses or fail to provide for future street
right of way?
3, 6, 7, 53
29
DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South
County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and
Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential transportation or traffic related impacts.
MITIGATION: None Required
O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
SOURCE
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
1, 3, 5,
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
1, 3, 5, 21a,
38
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
1, 3, 5
d) Require new or expanded entitlements in
order to have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project?
1, 3, 5, 21,
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has inadequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
1, 3, 5
f) Not be able to be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
1, 3, 5
g) Be in non-compliance with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
5, 6
h) Employ equipment which could interfere with
existing communications or broadcast
systems?
1, 3, 5
DISCUSSION: Approval of the project, including the modifications to the Palo Alto and South
County (San Martin) Airport AIA, 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL contours, FAR Part 77, and
Safety Zones maps, will not have any potential impacts to utilities or service systems.
MITIGATION: None Required
30
P. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
SOURCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
1 to 53
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
1 to 53
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
1 to 53
DISCUSSION:
In looking at cumulative impacts on other jurisdictions, the Palo Alto CLUP “influences“ San
Mateo County in terms of the FAA FAR Part 77 Surfaces map and the 55 and 60 dBA Noise
Contour. However, the ALUC has no influence in neighboring Counties. Therefore, adoption of
the project does not create any cumulatively considerable impacts in San Mateo County.
Overall, the implementation of the project will not trigger any mandatory findings of
significance.
EARLIER ANALYSIS
1) Earlier Analysis Used: n/a
2) Impacts Adequately Addressed: n/a
3) Mitigation Measures: n/a
Initial Study Source List*
1. Environmental Information Form
2. Field Inspection
3. Project Plans
4. Planner’s Knowledge of Area
5. Experience With Other Projects of This Size and
Nature
6. County Expert Sources: Geologist, Fire Marshal,
Roads & Airports, Environmental Health, Land
Development Engineering, Parks & Recreation,
Zoning Administration, Comprehensive Planning,
Architectural & Site Approval Committee
Secretary
7. Agency Sources: Santa Clara Valley Water
District, Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority, Midpeninsula Openspace Regional
District, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, CA Dept. of
Fish & Game, Caltrans, U.S. Army Core of
Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Public Works Depts. of individual cities, Planning
Depts. of individual cities,
8a. Santa Clara County (SCC) General Plan
8b. The South County Joint Area Plan
9. SCC Zoning Regulations (Ordinance)
10. County Grading Ordinance
11. SCC Guidelines for Architecture and Site
Approval
12. SCC Development Guidelines for Design Review
13. County Standards and Policies Manual (Vol. I - Land
Development)
14. Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code [1994
version]
15. Land Use Database
16. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource (including
Trees) Inventory [computer database]
17. GIS Database
a. SCC General Plan Land Use, and Zoning
b. Natural Habitat Areas & Riparian Plants
c. Relative Seismic Stability
d. Archaeological Resources
e. Water Resources & Water Problems
f. Viewshed and Scenic Roads
g. Fire Hazard
h. Parks, Public Open Space, and Trails
i. Heritage Resources
j. Slope Constraint
k. Serpentine soils
l. State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zones, and County landslide & fault
zones
m. Water Problem/Resource
n. USGS Topo Quad, and Liquefaction
o. Dept. of Fish & Game, Natural Diversity Data
p. FEMA Flood Zones
Base Map Overlays & Textual Reports (GIS)
18. Paper Maps
a. SCC Zoning
b. Barclay’s Santa Clara County Locaide Street
Atlas
c, Color Air Photos (MPSI)
d. Santa Clara Valley Water District - Maps of Flood
Control Facilities & Limits of 1% Flooding
e. Soils Overlay Air Photos
f. “Future Width Line” map set
19. CEQA Guidelines [Current Edition]
Area Specific: San Martin, Stanford, and Other Areas
San Martin
20a.San Martin Integrated Design Guidelines
20b.San Martin Water Quality Study
20c.Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
Santa Clara County & Santa Clara Valley Water District
Stanford
21a. Stanford University General Use Permit (GUP),
Community Plan (CP), Mitigation and Monitoring
Reporting Program (MMRP) and Environmental Impact
Report (EIR)
21b. Stanford Protocol and Land Use Policy Agreement
Other Areas
22a.ALUC Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding
Airports [1992 version]
22b.Los Gatos Hillsides Specific Area Plan
22c.County Lexington Basin Ordinance Relating to
Sewage Disposal
Soils
23.USDA, SCS, “Soils of Santa Clara County
24.USDA, SCS, “Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara
County”
Agricultural Resources/Open Space
25. Right to Farm Ordinance
26. State Dept. of Conservation, "CA Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model"
27. Open Space Preservation, Report of the Preservation
2020 Task Force, April 1987 [Chapter IV]
Air Quality
28. BAAQMD Clean Air Plan (1997)
29. BAAQMD Annual Summary of Contaminant
Excesses & BAAQMD, “Air Quality & Urban
Development - Guidelines for Assessing Impacts
of Projects & Plans” [1999]
Biological Resources/
Water Quality & Hydrological Resources/
Utilities & Service Systems"
30. Site-Specific Biological Report
31. Santa Clara County Tree Preservation Ordinance
Section C16
32. Clean Water Act, Section 404
33. Riparian Inventory of Santa Clara County, Greenbelt
Coalition, November 1988
34.CA Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water
Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Region
[1995]
35. Santa Clara Valley Water District, Private Well Water
Testing Program [12-98]
36. SCC Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program,
Urban Runoff Management Plan [1997]
37.County Environmental Health / Septic Tank Sewage
Disposal System - Bulletin “A”
38.County Environmental Health Department Tests
and Reports
Initial Study Source List*
39.Calphotos website:
http://www.elib.cs.berkeley.edu/photos
Archaeological Resources
40.State Archaeological Clearinghouse, Sonoma State
University
41. Site Specific Archaeological Reconnaissance
Report
Geological Resources
42. Site Specific Geologic Report
43.State Department of Mines and Geology, Special
Report #42
44. State Department of Mines and Geology, Special
Report #146
Noise
45. County Noise Ordinance
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
46.Section 21151.4 of California Public Resources Code
47. State Department of Toxic Substances, Hazardous
Waste and Substances Sites List 48. County Office of Emergency Services Emergency
Response Plan [1994 version]
Transportation/Traffic
49. Transportation Research Board, “Highway
Capacity Manual”, Special Report 209, 1995.
50. SCC Congestion Management Agency, “2000
Monitoring and Conformance report”
51. Official County Road Book
52. County Off-Street Parking Standards
53. Site-specific Traffic Impact Analysis Report
54. San Jose General Plan
55. San Jose Vacant Land Inventory, July 2004
*Items listed in bold are the most important sources
and should be referred to during the first review of the
project, when they are available. The planner should
refer to the other sources for a particular
environmental factor if the former indicate a potential
environmental impact.
Board of Supervisors: Blanca Alvarado, Donald F. Gage, Pete McHugh, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss County Executive: Pete Kutras. Jr.
County of Santa Clara
Department of Planning and Development Planning OfficeCounty Government Center, East Wing, 7th Floor 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, California 95110-1705 (408) 299-5770 FAX (408) 288-9198 www.sccplanning.org
Notice of Extended Comment Period for an Intent to Adopt
a Negative Declaration
Per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this notice has been prepared to inform you that the following project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
File Number TAZ APN(s)Date
N/A N/A Multiple 11/4/2008
Project Name Project Type
Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendments Land Use Plan / Public
Owner Applicant
County of Santa Clara. Various within Airport A.I.A’s. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission
Project Location
The environmental setting consists of three of the public use airports in Santa Clara County (Palo Alto, San
Jose International, South County Airport), and areas surrounding these airports. With respect to Palo Alto Airport, the surrounding land uses are the Baylands Conservation Area and a small area developed with commercial properties immediately east of Highway 101 on Embarcadero Road. With respect to South
County Airport, the surrounding area includes residential property with small areas of publicly owned property, with Highway 101 bordering the Airport to the east. Land Uses surrounding the Southern area of
San Jose International Airport are mostly commercial properties immediately southwest and a mixture of
medium density residential and commercial properties to the south across Interstate 880.
Project Description
The Project is an amendment to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission’s Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports (Land Use Plan) and is undertaken pursuant to the ALUC’s authority under Public Utilities Code § 21670 et seq. The amendments include: (1) The adoption of two new
airport-specific Comprehensive Land Use Plans (“CLUPs”), for South County (San Martin) Airport and Palo Alto Airport; and (2) a Map amendment of the County-wide CLUP to correct the South Safety Zone Map for
runway 11-29 at San Jose International Airport to reflect a reduction in width and length in the south Safety
Zone.
(1) Adoption of the South County /San Martin Airport and Palo Alto Airport CLUPs-
The new South County and Palo Alto Airport CLUPs (hereafter referred to as “CLUPs”) are intended to be
comprehensive, self-contained CLUPs for each Airport. They include several new policies that are associated
with the following map modifications:
• ALUC referral boundaries ("Airport Influence Areas" or "AIAs")
• 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours
• FAA, FAR Part 77 Surfaces Map
• Airport Safety Zones
The purpose of the CLUPs is to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the
airports and those who use the airports. The CLUPs are established to protect the public from the adverse
effects of small aircraft. Specifically, the CLUPs policies ensure that development adjacent to public-use
airports in Santa Clara County is not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and ensure that no
structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. The implementation of the CLUPs is intended to
prevent future incompatible development from encroaching on the Airports and to allow for development in
accordance with the current Airport Master Plan for each Airport.
In formulating the CLUPs, the ALUC establishes policies for the regulation of land use, building height,
safety, and noise exposure within areas adjacent to each of the public airports in the County. The four maps
(AIA, Noise Contours, FAR Part 77 and Safety Zones,) are used by the ALUC to determine the applicability
of ALUC policies and compatibility between new uses and airport operations in terms of noise and safety.
The purpose of each of these maps that have new associated policies are described in the following:
South County (San Martin) Airport referral boundary (AIA) – The Airport Influence Area (AIA) defines
the area in which the ALUC policies and procedures apply in South County. When the County of Santa Clara
chooses to amend its General Plan, adopt or amend any specific plans, zoning ordinances, or building
regulations, that would affect property within the AIA, the County must first refer the proposed action to the
ALUC. Voluntary referrals can also be made for other types of actions/projects that may be impacted by the
airport operations, such as Building Site Approval, Use Permits or Subdivisions. The new AIA area has been
reduced in size by 90.5 acres, from 6118.1 to 6027.6 total acres. The new AIA has been mapped to follow
property line boundaries at the southwest corner of the AIA to eliminate uncertainty in determining if a
property will fall within the zone.
Palo Alto Airport referral boundary (AIA) – The Airport Influence Area (AIA), defines the area in which
the ALUC policies and procedures apply in the Palo Alto Area. The proposed Palo Alto Airport CLUP does
not change the area of the AIA.
South County (San Martin) Airport 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours – These maps
delineate the predicted Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) in decibels as a result of airport
operations at South County Airport. If a project is referred to the ALUC and is within the 55, 60, 65, or 70
dBA CNEL Noise Contours, the applicable noise policies from the CLUP would be used to review the
application. The principal source for calculation of the proposed Noise Contours is the FAA modeling
software, which forecasts the annual airport operations. Also, the 2002 California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook, which is published by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, incorporates established Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines for noise standards. The new adopted maps will include a 65 and
70 dBA CNEL contour, which was not previously used. The existing CLUP only uses a 55 and 60 dBA
CNEL Noise Contour. The existing 55 dBA CNEL is approximately 400 acres. The new 55 dBA CNEL
includes 1085.7 total acres, which is a net increase of approximately 685 acres. The existing 60 dBA CNEL is
approximately 153 acres.
The new 60 dBA CNEL is 402.6 acres for an approximate increase of 240 acres. The new 65 dBA CNEL is
153 acres and the new 70 dBA CNEL is 59.4 acres, which only encompasses airport property and highway
101.
Palo Alto Airport 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours – Like the South County noise contours,
these maps delineate the predicted Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) boundary in decibels as a
result of airport operations at Palo Alto Airport. If a project is referred to the ALUC and is within the 55, 60,
65, or 70 dBA CNEL Noise Contours, the applicable noise policies would apply. Like the South County
Airport, the principal source for the proposed Noise Contours is the 2002 California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook. The existing Noise Contours are based on 1995/1996-forcast conditions and use 55, 60,
65, 70 and 75 dBA CNEL Noise Contours. The new adopted maps will only include up to a 70 dBA CNEL
Noise Contour, because the 75 dBA CNEL is entirely located on airport property. Therefore, no development
other than projects on airport property would be affected by the 75 dBA CNEL. According to County ALUC
files, there are no calculated areas within the existing Noise Contours for Palo Alto Airport. This is likely due
to the small size of those contours and their location within the Baylands Conservation lands as well as airport
property. The new 55 dBA CNEL is 2851.78 acres (including the “bubble” area west of the airport). The
new 60 dBA CNEL is 750.7 acres. The new 65 dBA CNEL is 211.0 acres and the 70 dBA CNEL is 107.4
acres. Acreage of existing CNELs have never been prepared for Palo Alto Airport.
South County and Palo Alto Airport FAA, FAR Part 77 Surfaces Map - Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, establishes imaginary surfaces for airports and runways
as a means to identify objects that are obstructions to air navigation. Each surface is defined as a slope-ratio,
or at a certain altitude above the airport elevation, measured at Mean Sea Level (MSL). Projects located
within the AIA are evaluated for consistency with the FAR Part 77 height restrictions. This is an FAA map
that is updated as necessary as a result of changes in the airport runway(s). It is not a County or ALUC map.
The current CLUPs are using an outdated version of the FAA maps. In 2007, the ALUC adopted a CLUP
amendment to incorporate by reference, the FAA maps currently in effect for each Airport in the County to
avoid the necessity of County-wide CLUP amendments each time the FAA updates the map as a result of
changes to the runways.
Palo Alto and South County Airport Safety Zones – Airport safety zones are established to minimize
exposure to potential airplane hazards. Both the Palo Alto and South County CLUPs use the threshold
adopted by the FAA for positioning the Runway Protection Zones. These areas are depicted on the FAA
approved Airport Layout Plans for each airport. Furthermore, the safety zones defined for the Airports are
based on the guidance for General Aviation Airports with runways less than 4,000 feet in the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002) adopted by the State of California, Department of
Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (“2002 Handbook”) pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 21674.7.
The following describes these safety zones, which are the same for both CLUPs, and represented by Figure 7
in both CLUPs:
Runway Protection Zone
The function of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) is to enhance the protection of people and property on the
ground and aircraft occupants. RPZs should be clear of all objects, structures and activities. The RPZ as
adopted by the airport and the FAA and begins 200 feet from the ends of the runways. It is a trapezoidal area
centered on the extended runway centerline. The size is related to the expected aircraft use and the visibility
minimums for that particular runway.
Turning Sector Defined
A geometric feature defined as a “Turning Sector” bound by some of the safety zones. This feature is
constructed as follows:
Each runway end has a sector, which is bounded on the inside by the extended runway centerline.
The radius of these sectors is 3,000 feet with the center point located 1,000 feet along the runway centerline
from the runway threshold towards the opposite end of the runway.
The arc for the sector is swung away from the opposite runway. The interior angle of the sector is 30 degrees
from the extended runway centerline. The two closest turning sector center-points are connected with a
straight line and a tangent line that connects the two associated arcs. The Turning Sector is defined as the
outside bounds of the feature constructed above. There is one Turning Sector for each end of the runway
system.
Inner Safety Zone
The Inner Safety Zone (ISZ) is located within the Turning Sector boundary described above. The ISZ
represents the approach and departure corridors that have the second highest level of exposure to potential
aircraft accidents. The ISZ is centered on the line midway between the runway centerlines starting at the apex
of the Turning Sector boundary and except as noted below, extends to the outer arc of the Turning Sector
boundary. The length of the runway determines the dimensions.
Turning Safety Zone
The Turning Safety Zone (TSZ) represents the approach and departure areas that have the third highest level
of exposure to potential aircraft accidents.
Outer Safety Zone
The Outer Safety Zone (OSZ) extends out from the Turning Sector arc. The OSZ is a rectangular area
centered on the line midway between the extended runway centerlines starting at the outer end of the Turning
Sector arc. The length of the runway determines the dimensions. The OSZ for northwest ends of the runways
is a rectangular area 1,300 feet wide and 1,500 feet long at the center, centered on the line midway between
the extended runway centerlines, starting at the outer edge of the ISZ and extending away from the runway
threshold.
Sideline Safety Zone
The Sideline Safety Zone (SSZ) is an area along side and parallel to the runways. This area is not normally
overflown by aircraft except by aircraft losing directional control on takeoff (especially twin-engine aircraft).
Traffic Pattern Zone
The Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) is within other portions of the airport area that are routinely overflown by
aircraft. The potential for aircraft accidents is relatively low and the need for land use restrictions is minimal.
The TPZ excludes all other zones described above. For both airports, the TPZ is the surface area underlying
the FAR Part 77 Horizontal Surface. The perimeter of the TPZ is constructed by swinging arcs of 5,000 feet
out for the runways from a point 200 feet out from each runway pavement end on the extended centerline and
connecting the arcs with lines tangent to these arcs.
Currently, the safety zones for Palo Alto and South County Airports are two areas rectangular in shape, at each
end of the runway. Both the north and south safety areas encompass a total of 283.6 acres at each airport. The
combined area of the new safety zone area is 3,241 acres, for a net increase of 2,957.4 acres. As all safety
zones are within the AIA, all general plan amendments, rezoning, specific plans, or modifications to building
regulations for affected properties within the safety zones, would be required to be reviewed by the ALUC for
consistency with the safety policies in the CLUPs.
Also, incorporated into the Amendments is the following non-airport-specific CLUP amendment:
(2) Map Amendment for the South Safety Zone dimensions for runway 11-29 at San Jose International
Airport: -
The ALUC amended the County-wide CLUP in 2005 to include map updates as a result of the lengthening of
runways at San Jose International Airport. In that update, the ALUC approved the original 5,000-foot by
1,500-foot south safety zone for Runway 11-29. However, the text, which describes the dimensions of the
Safety Zones remained unchanged, stating a dimension of 990 feet wide by 3,960 feet long.
Purpose of Notice
The purpose of this notice is to inform you that the County Planning Staff has recommended that a Negative
Declaration be approved for this project. County of Santa Clara Planning Staff has reviewed the Initial Study
for the project, and based upon substantial evidence in the record, finds that the proposed project could not
have a significant effect on the environment.
The public comment period was originally for 20 days beginning on October 3rd, 2008 running through October
26, 2008. To give the public additional time to comment, the ALUC has extended the comment period to
November 19, 2008 at 5:00PM.
A public hearing for the proposed project is tentatively scheduled for the Airport land Use Commission on
November 19, 2008 at 6:00PM in the County Government Center; 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA
95110. It should be noted that the approval of a Negative Declaration does not constitute approval of the
project under consideration. The decision to approve or deny the project will be made separately.
Public Review Period: Begins: October 31, 2008 Ends: November 19, 2008
Public Comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this negative declaration are invited
and must be received on or before the end of the review period listed above. Such comments should be based
on specific environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the County of Santa Clara
Planning Office, County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110, Tel: (408)
299-5770. Oral comments may be made at the hearing. A file containing additional information on this
project may be reviewed at the Planning Office under the file number appearing at the top of this form. For
additional information regarding this project and the Negative Declaration, please contact Mark J. Connolly
at (408) 299-5786.
The Negative Declaration and Initial Study may be viewed at the following locations:
(1) Santa Clara County Planning Office, 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 7th Floor, San Jose, CA 95110
(2) Planning Office Website www.sccplanning.org (Environmental Documents under “Find it Fast”)
(3) Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Palo Alto and San Jose Public Library-Rose Garden Branch
Other Agencies sent a copy of this document
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics ( Courtesy Only), Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, San Mateo County, Mountain
View, Sunnyvale, Gilroy and Morgan Hill
Prepared by:
Mark J. Connolly __________________________ ________
Signature Date
Approved by:
Rob Eastwood, Senior Planner, AICP __________________________ ________
Signature Date
This page was intentionally left blank
090331 gk 0073121
RECORDED AT NO CHARGE IN )
ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT )
CODE § 6103 AT THE REQUEST )
OF, AND WHEN RECORDED, RETURN )
TO: )
)
CITY OF PALO ALTO/Real Estate )
250 Hamilton Avenue )
Palo Alto, CA 94301 )
____________________________________)___________________________________SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE ONLY
GRANT OF AVIGATION EASEMENT
1. FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, [insert the name/names]
(“GRANTOR”), does hereby grant to the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered municipal corporation of the State of California, its successors and assigns (“GRANTEE”), a perpetual and assignable easement (the “Avigation Easement”) in and over the real property described in Section 2 below (the "Real Property"), in which GRANTOR holds fee title, and a
right-of-way for the free and unrestricted passage of aircraft of any and all kinds now or
hereafter known, in, through, across and about the airspace above the surface of the plane
above the Real Property described below (the "Airspace").
2. The Real Property, which is the subject of this GRANT OF AVIGATION
EASEMENT, is all that Real Property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, as follows: [insert street address and legal description (or the assessor’s parcel number) of the Real Property] Street Address: _____________________________________________________
APN: ____________________________________________________________
Other: ____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
3. The Avigation Easement applies to both the Real Property and the airspace above
an imaginary plane over the Real Property (the “Airspace”), which is described, as
follows:
Attachment E
090331 gk 0073121
The imaginary plane above the Real Property, as such plane is defined by Part 77
of the Federal Aviation Regulations and consists of a plane [describe approach,
transition, or horizontal surface]: the elevation of the plane being based upon the
official FAA Palo Alto Airport elevation of _______ feet Above Mean Sea Level
(“AMSL”), the approximate dimensions of which the plane are described and
shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
4. The purposes of this Avigation Easement include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a. The use and benefit of the public, for the continuing right to fly, or cause
or permit the flight by any and all persons, or any aircraft, of any and all kinds now or
hereafter known, in, through, across, or about any portion of the Real Property and the
Airspace; and
b. The right to cause or create, or permit or allow to be caused or created
within all space above the existing surface of the Real Property and any and all the
Airspace above and laterally adjacent to the Real Property, such noises, vibrations,
currents and other effects of air, illumination and fuel consumption as may be inherent in,
or may arise or occur from or during the operation of aircraft of any and all kinds, now or
hereafter known or used, for navigation of or flight in air; and
c. A continuing right to clear, and keep clear from the Real Property and the
Airspace any portions of building, structures, or improvements of any and all kinds, and
of trees or other objects, including the right to remove or demolish those portions of such
buildings, structures, improvements, trees or other things which extend into or above the
Airspace, and the right to cut to the ground level and remove any trees which extend into
or above the Airspace; and
d. The right to mark and light, or cause or require to be marked or lighted, as
obstructions to air navigation, any and all buildings, structures, or other improvements,
and trees or other objects, which extend into or above the Airspace; and
e. The right of ingress to, passage within, and egress from the Real Property
for the purposes described in subparagraphs "c" and "d" above at reasonable times and
after reasonable notice.
5. GRANTOR, for and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, hereby
covenants (or covenant) with GRANTEE for the direct benefit of the real property
constituting the Palo Alto Airport (the “Airport”), described in Section 6 below, as
follows:
a. GRANTOR, its successors in interest or assigns, will not construct, install,
erect, place, grow in or around the Real Property, or permit or allow any building,
090331 gk 0073121
structure, improvement, tree, or other object on the Real Property to extend into or above
the Airspace or right-of-way, or to constitute an obstruction to air navigation, or to
obstruct or interfere with the use of this Avigation Easement; and
b. GRANTOR, its successors in interest or assigns, will not hereafter use or
permit the use of the Real Property in such a manner as to create electrical or electronic
interference with radio communication or radar operation between the Federal Aviation
Administration control tower upon the Airport and any aircraft.
6. This Avigation Easement shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the direct
benefit of the real property that constitutes the Palo Alto Airport in the County of Santa
Clara, State of California; and the Avigation Easement shall further be deemed in gross,
being conveyed to GRANTEE for the benefit of GRANTEE and any and all members of
the general public who may use the Airspace and right-of-way for landing at, taking off
from, or operating such aircraft in or about the Airport, or in otherwise flying above the
Real Property or through the Airspace.
7. GRANTOR, together with its successors in interest and assigns, hereby waives its
rights to legal action against GRANTEE, its appointed officials, officers, employees,
successors, and assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts associated
with aircraft operations in the air or on the ground at the Airport, including future
increases in the volume or changes in location of those operations. Furthermore,
GRANTEE, its appointed officials, officers, employees, successors, and assigns shall
have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages through physical modifications or
Airport facilities or the establishment or modification of aircraft operational procedures
or restrictions. This grant of Avigation Easement shall not operate to deprive
GRANTOR, its successors in interest or assigns, of any rights which it may from time to
time have against any air carrier or private aircraft operator for the negligent or unlawful
operation of aircraft.
8. These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs,
administrators, executors, successors and assigns of GRANTOR, and for the purpose of
this Avigation Easement, the Real Property and the Airspace and right-of-way described
above constitute the servient tenement and the real property comprising the Palo Alto
Airport is the dominant tenement.
(GRANTOR)
090331 gk 0073121
By:
Name: __________________________________________
Dated: __________________________________________
By:
Name: __________________________________________
Dated: __________________________________________
090331 gk 0073121
ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Civil Code Section 1189
STATE OF )
) ss
COUNTY OF )
On before me, , a
notary
(date) (name and title of officer)
public, personally appeared ,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that
by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary's Signature
090331 gk 0073121
EXHIBIT A
Description of Real Property
090331 gk 0073121
EXHIBIT B
(See Section 3 of Avigation Easement; Show Real Property and Elevation Limits)
This page was intentionally left blank
NOT YET APPROVED
090514 jb 0073138 1
Resolution No. _______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend
the Comprehensive Plan to Incorporate the Santa Clara County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the
Palo Alto Airport
WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission of the County of Santa Clara (the
“County”) adopted the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport (the “Airport
Plan”) on November 19, 2008; and
WHEREAS, California law requires that the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) to ensure
that the City’s Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the Airport Plan within 180 days of the
County’s adoption of Airport Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2009, the Planning and Transportation Commission
recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Element of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan as set forth below; and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of the recommendation, the Council desires to
amend the City’s Comprehensive Pan, as hereinafter set forth;
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and
welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region require the amendment of the Land Use Element
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as set forth in Section 2.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Element of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: (a) by adding the Airport Influence Area (the
“AIA”), established in the Airport Plan, to Map L-2; (b) by adding Program L-2B, which
establishes a development review process for projects within the AIA; and (c) by adding a
supplemental text box that provides information to implement the program.
//
//
//
//
//
Attachment F
NOT YET APPROVED
090514 jb 0073138 1
SECTION 3. A Negative Declaration for the amendment to the Santa Clara County
Airport Land Use Commission’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa
Clara County Airports was adopted by the Santa Clara County on November 19, 2008.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachment G
TO:
FROM:
PLANNING & TRANSPORTA TION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Gloria Humble
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: Apri129,2009
SUBJECT: Recommendation to City Council for Adoption of a Resolution to Amend
the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Santa Clara County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palo Alto Airport (PAO CLUP) by 1)
Amending Map L-2 to include the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established
in the PAO CLUP and 2) Amending the "Land Use" Element to include
Program L-2B and a supplemental text box to establish a program for
monitoring development within the AIA.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City
Council adopt a resolution (Attachment F) to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the
Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palo Alto Airport (PAO CLUP) by 1)
Amending Map L-2 to include the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established in the PAO CLUP and
2) Amending the "Land Use" Element to include Program L-2B and a supplemental text box to
establish a program for monitoring development within the AIA. (Attachments B & C)
BACKGROUND:
In 1971, the County of Santa Clara established the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to be
responsible for the protection of people and property within the vicinity of airports. In 1973, the
ALUC adopted a Countywide Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Countywide CLUP) to help
provide that protection.
The Countywide CL UP fulfilled its function, not by regulating the airport-that is the role of the
FAA and Airport Master Plans-but rather, by regulating non-airport land use and structures in
the vicinity of the airport. The Countywide CLUP contained guidelines that limited
concentrations of people in areas susceptible to accidents and restricted new structures or
activities that would interfere with navigable airspace. The Countywide CL UP included Airport
Influence Areas (AlAs) for each airport that identified properties subject to its guidelines. These
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
AIAs encompassed the areas typically over flown by aircraft using each airport.
The Countywide CL UP was amended in the 1990s. Then, around 2002, the County began a
transition from the single, Countywide CLUP to airport-specific documents that focus on issues
related to each individual airport. As a result of that effort, the ALUC fmalized a Draft PAD CLUP
in 2008. On August 11, 2008, the County held a Community Outreach Meeting in the Palo Alto
City Council chambers and presented the proposed PA D CLUP. On November 19, 2008, the
County adopted the PAD CLUP. (Attachment A)
DISCUSSION:
Staff recommends that proposed specific amendments be adopted to incorporate the PAD CLUP
into the Comprehensive Plan in order to comply with State law which mandates that the City
incorporate the PAD CLUP into its Comprehensive Plan within 180 days of the County's adoption
date.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments implement the PAD CLUP guidelines and
procedures in three ways:
1. The AIA Comprehensive Plan on Map L-2 identifies subject properties (Attachment B)
2. Comprehensive Plan Program L-2B establishes a development review process for
projects within the AIA. (Attachment C; page L-5)
3. The proposed supplemental Comprehensive Plan text box provides information to
implement the program. (Attachment C; page L-7)
hnplementation of the program will be supported by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC). The City may refer any project to them for review and recommendation. In
fact, certain projects are "mandatory" referrals. (See Attachment C; page L-7 for referral criteria.)
The ALUC will review referred proposals for consistency with the PAD CLUP guidelines and
nlake recommendations to the City regarding implementation of the PAD CLUP guidelines for
specific projects. The ALUC recommendations are advisory.
As the City's land use and development regulations within the AIA are at least as restrictive as
those of the CLUP, it is anticipated that the ALUC will not make recommendations on land use
compatibility or building height that are different from what the City would already require.
However, the ALUC may recommend that the City require the subject property owner to grant an
avigation easement (to the City of Palo Alto) (Attachment E) as a condition for obtaining an
entitlement or building permit. The primary purpose of such an A vigation Easement is the
continuation of the public's right to use the described airspace for flying. Another purpose of
such an A vigation Easement is to ensure that prospective buyers of property in the vicinity of an
airport are made aware of the airport's existence and the impacts that the airport activity has on
surrounding land uses.
Since the ALUC adopted the PAD CLUP, there have been development proposals within the
AIA. A proposal to remodel the business park at 1840 Embarcadero Road did not require ALUC
review. A proposal for a new hotel at 1700 Embarcadero Road, was a mandatory referral to the
ALUC because it would require an amendment to the Zoning Code and to the Comprehensive
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Plan. Had it not required those amendments, the proposed hotel would have been an
"encouraged" referral. (See Attachment C; page L-7 for referral criteria.) The ALUC review of
that hotel proposal resulted in a single recommendation-that the City require an avigation
easement as a condition of the building permit.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Incorporation of the PAG CLUP into the Comprehensive Plan implements the guidelines of the
PAG CLUP which are compatible with existing Comprehensive Plan policies that support
compatible land uses in the vicinity of the airport. They also reinforce the existing
Comprehensive Plan policies by identifying an area subject to airport overflights and serve as
notice of potential noise and safety impacts from airport operations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Negative Declaration for this amendment to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use
Commission's Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports was adopted
by Santa Clara County on November 19, 2008. (Attachment D).
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palo Alto Airport
B. Proposed amended Comprehensive Plan Map L-2 showing AIA
C. Proposed amended Comprehensive Plan Pages L-5 through L-7 showing new Program L-
2B and supplemental text box
D. Negative Declaration
E. Proposed Grant of A vigation Easement to the City of Palo Alto
F. Proposed Resolution
COURTESY COPIES:
Palo Alto Airport Working Group (P AA WG)
Palo Alto Airport Association
Prepared by: Gloria Humble, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Catherine Siegel, Advance Planning Manager
Curtis Williams, Interim Director
City of Palo Alto Page 3
This page was intentionally left blank
PLANNING& TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
MINUTES
==================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 1 of 19
Wednesday, April 29, 2009 1
Special Meeting at 6:00 PM 2 Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 3 250 Hamilton Avenue 4 Palo Alto, California 94301 5
6
ROLL CALL:6:10 PM78Commissioners: Staff:9 Daniel Garber – Chair (absent for 1) Julie Caporgno, Chief Plan. & Trans. Official 10 Samir Tuma – V-Chair Melissa Tronquet, Assistant City Attorney 11
Susan Fineberg Amy French, Current Planning Manager 12
Karen Holman Gloria Humble, Senior Planner 13 Arthur Keller Russ Reich, Senior Planner 14 Lee I. Lippert Zariah Betten, Admin. Assoc. 15 Fabio Rosati 16
17
AGENDIZED ITEMS: 1819 1.Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palo Alto Airport 20
2.2180 El Camino Real (The New College Terrace Centre) 21
3.Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Continued to a date certain of May 13, 2009 2223
Vice-Chair Tuma: Welcome to the April 29, 2009 Special Meeting of the Planning and 24 Transportation Commission starting at six o’clock this evening. Would the Secretary like to call 25
the roll, please? Thank you. 2627
Chair Garber will be joining us for the second item. Hopefully we will get through the first item 28
by about seven o’clock so he is planning on being here around seven to start with that. 2930
This is the point in the agenda where there is an opportunity for the public to speak to any items 31
not on the agenda during Oral Communications. Seeing no cards we will go directly to item one. 3233 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda 34 with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a 35
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and 36
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 37
minutes38
Attachment H
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 2 of 19
1
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items 2
added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. 3
4
Vice-Chair Tuma: Actually we do have a change to the agenda. Item number three will be 5
continued to May 13, 2009. That was noted in the agenda and that item will not be heard this 6
evening. 7
8
Item number one is a recommendation to City Council for adoption of a resolution to amend the 9
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for 10
Palo Alto Airport by 1) Amending the Map L-2 to include the Airport Influence Area established 11
in the PAO CLUP and 2) Amending the “Land Use” Element to include Program L-2B and a 12
supplemental text box to establish a program for monitoring development within the AIA. Staff, 13
you have a presentation. 14
15
NEW BUSINESS 16
Public Hearing: 17
18
1. Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palo Alto Airport: 19
Recommendation to City Council for Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the 20
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan 21
for Palo Alto Airport (PAO CLUP) by 1) Amending Map L-2 to include the Airport 22
Influence Area (AIA) established in the PAO CLUP and 2) Amending the “Land Use” 23
Element to include Program L-2B and a supplemental text box to establish a program for 24
monitoring development within the AIA. 25
26
Ms. Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official: Thank you Vice-Chair Tuma. 27
I want to introduce Gloria Humble who is Senior Planner in the Planning Department. She will 28
give a PowerPoint presentation to go over what the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo 29
Alto Airport is and how it affects our Comprehensive Plan and the expectations of that. 30
31
Also, in audience tonight we have Mark Connolly from Santa Clara County Planning 32
Department and he is Staff to the Airport Land Use Commission, ALUC, which you will see 33
peppered throughout the Staff Report. 34
35
Before Gloria begins her presentation I just want to stress what the item is. It is a stated 36
mandated protection plan primarily, to insure that new development in the vicinity of airports 37
will not be impacted by airport use. So it directed at new development and doesn’t effect any 38
existing development, any of the lands that are currently in use in the vicinity of the airport. This 39
does not affect those. 40
41
I think at places tonight you have received comments that were received from Commissioner 42
Fineberg. I think most of the issues that she addressed in her comments will be addressed in the 43
presentation. We will kind of go over those at the end just to make sure that everything was 44
touched on, with that I will turn it over to Gloria. 45
46
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 3 of 19
Ms. Gloria Humble, Senior Planner: I just wanted to make sure that everybody was familiar with 1
these terms because I will be using the. The ALUC is the Airport Land Use Commission and 2
tonight we will be talking about the Airport Land Use Commission of Santa Clara County. The 3
CLUP is the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and tonight we will be talking about the CLUP for 4
the Palo Alto Airport. Then another important term is the AIA, which is the Airport Influence 5
Area. 6
7
For better or for worse I have divided this information into four topics. When you see the red 8
you will know I am moving to another topic. So the first topic will be a little bit of background 9
and the relationship between the ALUC, the CLUP, and the City. 10
11
The state established the ALUC to provide orderly growth in the areas surrounding public 12
airports. To accomplish this task the ALUC wrote the CLUP. The CLUP contains guidelines 13
that concern themselves with land use and development specifically with regard to noise, safety, 14
height, and overflight. Now the state also placed the responsibility for enforcing these guidelines 15
with the local jurisdiction. As a result the City and the ALUC are in a partnership to provide this 16
orderly growth. To facilitate the partnership the state requires that the City’s regulations be 17
consistent with the CLUP. Either through good luck or good planning Palo Alto’s existing 18
regulations were already consistent with the CLUP guidelines. However, we still need to meet 19
the letter of the law and therefore we must take certain steps to tangibly establish and 20
demonstrate that state required consistency. 21
22
New topic. What action are we taking? We are going to adopt a resolution to amend the 23
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the CLUP. This is recommendation is based on the CLUP 24
Section 4.2.2, which prescribes how to establish and demonstrate the state required consistency. 25
Very briefly there are about two steps. One is to incorporate the Airport Influence Area and the 26
CLUP policies, then two to provide ongoing review. 27
28
So step one we can accomplish with the three changes to the Comprehensive Plan, i.e., adding 29
the AIA to the Map, adding Policy L-2B, and adding some supplemental text that will help future 30
users of the document to know how interact with both the CLUP and the ALUC. Then that 31
second step for establishing state required consistency is to provide ongoing review, which leads 32
us to our next topic, the Review Process. 33
34
We talk about the review, the guidelines, the referrals, and I probably should have added 35
navigation easement there because that is kind of a standalone topic. So as described earlier the 36
City is in a partnership with the ALUC and the CLUP Section 4.2.1.3 talks a little bit about this. 37
The role of the ALUC is to advice the City. The City will refer a proposal to the ALUC, they 38
will review it for consistency with the guidelines, and they will advise the City as to whether or 39
not they find it to be consistent. If not, they may advise the City as to how they think it can be 40
made consistent. They may even advise the City as to how a consistent proposal could be made 41
yet more compatible with the guidelines. As we have stated their role is advisory, however, the 42
City is still obligated to ensure that both policy changes and new development are consistent 43
with the CLUP guidelines. 44
45
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 4 of 19
Next we will talk a little bit about the review, the actual review. We start out by defining what 1
properties are affected and those properties are defined by the Airport Influence Area, the AIA. 2
We have added this to our GIS and this is what is being added to the Comprehensive Plan Map. 3
You can see it is a feature based boundary line. So it is following a creek here, a land end, and 4
now the County boundary line, and here it is following Charleston Slew, and then here it is 5
following 101. One thing that is interesting is this little area over here, this little developable 6
area part of which we just annexed is not included in the AIA. 7
8
The next interesting slide to look at and this is right out of the CLUP and it affects the 9
development potential are the safety zones. They radiate from the runway. Everything radiates 10
from the runway, the intensity of all the restrictions. So this little green thing here is the runway 11
and these colorful lines represent different zones. So there will be a corresponding table to this 12
map that says within this zone you can have these land uses, and that is based on safety. In other 13
words, the closer you get to the runway the more safety concerns are a factor in the development 14
and land use choices. By the way, as drawn in the County boundary line here to kind of 15
accentuate that some of these safety zones are in San Mateo County and you will see that they 16
have actually dotted them on the map that they publish. I think I will let Mark, if you have some 17
questions about how this CLUP affects San Mateo County I think I would be better of letting 18
Mark address that. So as soon as I am done here I will make him available. 19
20
These are the noise contours. Again, they radiate from the runway and the development 21
potential is going to be based on how close it is to the runway and what noise contour it falls in. 22
I have not prepared these to the noise contour map in the Comprehensive Plan but I do know that 23
at this gross level I wouldn’t be surprised that there might be a slight difference. If push came to 24
shove and there was a major development proposal and sound was a factor I don’t think you 25
would use this kind of gross information anyhow. You would do a site specific noise analysis if 26
that was going to be a CEQA factor or a development factor even per these regulations. 27
28
These are the height contours I will call them. I am not quite sure they are contours. Again, they 29
radiate from the runway and this provides a good opportunity to see how our regulations are 30
more restrictive than the CLUP regulations. For example, here is the runway, by the time you 31
get to this yellow line here the CLUP allows your building to be 100 feet tall. So I don’t think 32
any developers have to worry about this. 33
34
Now we talk a little bit about the referrals and Section 4.2.1 of the CLUP also talks about this. 35
There are going to be some required referrals. In general those are going to be policy changes 36
that affect the area, the AIA. For example, anything to do with airport master plan, changes to 37
the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning or Building regulations, specific plans that affect the AIA, and 38
then development proposal that involve a change to any of those policy documents like a hotel 39
that requires a zone change. 40
41
Section 4.2.1 also talks about encouraged referrals, which include major infrastructure 42
improvements that would promote urban development, residential units of more than five units, 43
high density uses like theaters or low-mobility uses hospitals, structures over 200 feet, and 44
finally proposals that proposals that increase the existing square footage by 50 percent. I think 45
you will find that last one isn’t explicitly described in the CLUP, Section 4.2.1, but I have had 46
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 5 of 19
conversations with County Staff, the liaison to the CLUP actually the ALUC, and we have come 1
to the conclusion that the interpretation of encouraged referrals will include proposal that 2
increase the existing square footage by 50 percent. 3
4
Staff expects that the ALUC will not make recommendations that differ from what the City 5
would already have required, remember the height limits are so much more allowing, with the 6
exception of what they call a navigation easement. The ALUC may well recommend that a 7
navigation easement be included as a condition of approval for a project. We have never had a 8
policy regarding those before. If a navigation easement is a condition of approval for a proposal 9
then the City will be responsible for making sure that that easement is recorded. To that end, the 10
City Attorney’s Office has developed the proposed navigation easements that are attached to 11
your Staff Report and Staff will use the same procedure that we currently use for recording 12
public utility easements when they are required as a condition of approval. 13
14
New Topic, Admin Stuff. For example, the public outreach that led us to here, the 15
environmental review that led us to here, and the findings to make the decision we are about to 16
make. Regarding public outreach there were several meetings, mailings, and newspaper ads. I 17
guess it started February 8, 2008. I think it started earlier than that but we have records of a 18
February 8 meeting with City Staff. There was a JRC meeting at the Baylands. There was a 19
City selection meeting, and then an outreach meeting right here in the Chambers on August 11. 20
By the way, at that meeting the only issue that was raised was by Commissioner Keller, which 21
was he was asking about the logistics of implementing the navigation easement requirement. So 22
hopefully what I just said explained that for you. 23
24
Vice-Chair Tuma: Gloria, what is JRC? 25
26
Ms. Humble: Joint Community Relations Committee, JCRC. 27
28
Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. 29
30
Ms. Humble: The environmental review. When the County adopted the CLUP they did an 31
initial study and adopted a Negative Declaration. At that time the City of Palo Alto participated 32
in review of those environmental documents. The City was at that time satisfied that the analysis 33
was adequate. Now, having participated in that review Palo Alto is entitled to tier or that County 34
adopted Negative Declaration rather than perform a separate analysis. So if the Planning 35
Commission and the City Council determine that they are satisfied with that analysis we will be 36
able to tier off the County’s Negative Declaration. 37
38
Finally, the findings for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The incorporation of the CLUP 39
policies into the Comprehensive Plan is based on public interest, health, safety, and welfare. The 40
policies served to further ensure that appropriate development in this area with special risks will 41
be appropriate. It also serves to provide notice of the special risks in this area. This basis is 42
reflected in Section 1 of the proposed resolution, which is Attachment F. That’s it. 43
44
Ms. Caporgno: Can I add something? 45
46
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 6 of 19
Vice-Chair Tuma: Please. 1
2
Ms. Caporgno: I mentioned at the beginning that we had distributed Commissioner Fineberg’s 3
comments and we had not. I checked with Zariah. So I will read them into the record. What she 4
had asked I think most of them have been addressed with the presentation but she may want to 5
follow up after when open up the questions from the Commission. 6
7
Her first question was please describe involvement of the public, City Staff, Planning 8
Commission, or Council with the CLUP before it was adopted by the County. It was public 9
feedback from the August 11, 2008 community outreach meeting. I think Gloria addressed that 10
in her presentation. The second one was the airport is located in a northeastern edge of Santa 11
Clara County not northwestern as stated in Attachment A of the CLUP. I think maybe the 12
County would debate that but that is part of the County document. Three, what are the Airport 13
Influence Area boundaries for the CLUP specifically? Does it include the area at the end of San 14
Antonio Avenue? She gives examples of City services, the animal shelter along East Bayshore 15
and Embarcadero Road at East Bayshore. If any of these areas are in the AIA then will the 16
adoption of the CLUP by Palo Alto impact any of the proposed development in ways that have 17
not already been discussed? I think we showed the different boundaries and there is nothing. 18
19
Commissioner Fineberg: I’m sorry, City services yard was within the boundary. So my question 20
there is if that got redeveloped as a car dealership are we okay however that gets changed? 21
22
Ms. Caporgno: Yes, I think the process that we have identified -- there is nothing exceptional to 23
the process. So those processes are satisfactory. 24
25
The noise contour map, Figure 5, how does the new map on page 3-6 compare with the current 26
noise map used in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan? Then she asked about the Negative 27
Declaration on page 19, and it discusses noise impacts. First of all, the noise contour map as 28
Gloria pointed out may be a little bit off in the Comprehensive Plan. We are going to update 29
those because they are ten years old number one, and number two, they are very general. So any 30
development coming in for that general area we would require a noise analysis to make sure of 31
what the noise impacts would be. Again, this plan is a protection plan it is not a plan that is 32
going to develop anything. So I think from the standpoint of what they did in the analysis and 33
the Negative Declaration Staff feels very comfortable with that analysis. 34
35
Number five, has the City reviewed or approved the proposed navigation easement? The City 36
Attorney prepared the document. 37
38
Would adoption of the CLUP impact flood protection, levees, and other protection measures that 39
will be developed by the South Bay Shoreline Study? Not to our knowledge, and the only thing 40
that would happen I believe, maybe the County Staff may want address this, but if there is some 41
sort of restoration if there is something that would somehow create some sort of impact that 42
would have to be addressed separately as that project was undertaken. 43
44
Then, per the Negative Declaration, the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour covers the Palo Alto 45
Baylands nature preserve in San Mateo County. Does the preserve include San Mateo County 46
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 7 of 19
land? Yes it does. Does the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan govern San Mateo County land? No 1
it doesn’t. How does one reconcile a 65 dB noise level with dedicated parkland outdoor use? 2
Again, the contour is addressing new development not what is on the ground. This is again a 3
protection plan and maybe it is not ideal that we have a preserve in an area that is so noisy but 4
that is an existing condition. 5
6
Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks. Just to remind the public at this point we don’t have any cards 7
from the public. So if anybody is inclined to speak on this item you could submit a card. 8
9
Julie, was there anything specifically that you wanted the gentleman from the County to speak to 10
or is he here to answer questions if we have them? 11
12
Ms. Caporgno: He is here to answer any questions that you might have of him. 13
14
Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great. Commissioners, questions for Staff, we can do questions and 15
comments at the same time if you would like. Commissioner Lippert. 16
17
Commissioner Lippert: Just a couple of technical questions. The elevations that we are talking 18
about here I know that they are outside what our development regulations would be and in fact 19
they are much higher in some areas. Are they based on the land? The topography out there 20
really varies significantly. Is it based on a set elevation or is it set on the height off the elevation 21
at a target property? So for instance if there is a plan for a hotel where Ming’s is and it is in that 22
area, would it have to be off of the elevation at grade at the Ming’s site or would it be off of an 23
elevation say at the runway? 24
25
26
Mark Connolly, County of Santa Clara Planning Department, and Staff to the Airport Land Use 27
Commission: Good evening Commissioners. First I want to commend Gloria and the Palo Alto 28
Staff a very good presentation and a lot of hard staff work they put through to do this amendment 29
and get this going forward this far. It is a tremendous job. 30
31
To answer your question Commissioner Lippert, the contours you are talking about are actually 32
from an FAA map called an FAA FAR Part 77 Services. It is an FAA map it is not even an 33
ALUC map. It is based on MSL, Mean Sea Level. So your question about is it based off grade 34
at some particular site or a runway or something like that, everything goes from the runway and 35
you have a set mean sea level of that runway and then all the elevations are mean sea level. So 36
for a round number if you had a 100-foot development and it was at exactly the same as the 37
airport runway, you would look at those contours and say the 100-foot contour is exactly equal 38
with the height of the building. So in that case you would have mean sea level and grade being 39
the same. Then given the different topographies you also mentioned you have to add or subtract 40
given height. You can’t really make policies off something like that. What you do is you base it 41
off of mean sea level, something you know. So that is how we figure out if you have an 42
obstruction to navigation and air space there. That is really the only way you can do it accurately 43
and develop policies. 44
45
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 8 of 19
Commissioner Lippert: So as we have global warming and the polar icecaps melt and the bay 1
begins to rise those buildings are going to appear much lower. 2
3
Mr. Connolly: Well, if we get different information from the feds that the mean sea level has 4
changed we will have to re-lay all these maps you see here, yes. 5
6
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I guess one last question is let’s say at some point the County 7
cedes the airport, they decide that they don’t want to continue with the airport, does this 8
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan then get removed from the Comprehensive Plan or does 9
it remain in perpetuity if the airport was say abandoned? 10
11
Ms. Caporgno: I believe that it would still remain in place because there is an airport out there. 12
So it is a state requirement for airports as opposed to who is actually managing the airport. 13
14
Commissioner Lippert: Okay, but if the airport were to go away let’s say at some point the lease 15
with the County runs out or whoever is leasing it at the time and the City decides they want to 16
redevelop it as additional parkland. Does the CLUP remain in place or is it removed from our 17
Comprehensive Plan? 18
19
Ms. Caporgno: I would assume we would remove it at that time. 20
21
Commissioner Lippert: Would we have to take action to do that? 22
23
Ms. Caporgno: We would have to amend the Comprehensive Plan. 24
25
Commissioner Lippert: Okay, thank you. 26
27
Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg followed by Holman. 28
29
Commissioner Fineberg: As a follow up to Commissioner Lippert’s question if the airport 30
control changed from the County to the City of Palo Alto would the navigation easement 31
properly also then vest to the City of Palo Alto or do we need to structure some sort of transfer 32
anticipating if the airport does transfer? 33
34
Ms. Melissa Tronquet, Assistant City Attorney: I think it already is with the City. The City will 35
record it. So it is any new development that takes place in that area the easement would be a 36
condition of approval for that development. So the process for getting the easement executed 37
and recorded would be through the City anyway. 38
39
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so that would be a seamless change then. Great. The one 40
question I did have, and thank you Julie for reading them into the record. On the South Bay 41
Shoreline Study that moves ahead over the next 40 years there are going to be some flood 42
protections put in buy the Army Corp and about ten other federal, state, county, and city 43
agencies. As those proceed there is a possibility of some levees that would raise the height to 44
provide tidal flood protection. Are those levees that are currently there in a location that if they 45
are rebuilt, if they are five or ten feet higher, will that be prohibited by the location of the current 46
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 9 of 19
runway or is that small amount of height on those outboard levees is it known that that will be 1
okay? 2
3
Mr. Connolly: I can take that, sure. Commissioner Fineberg the answer to your question is if 4
any of those levees are located in what we call the runway protection zone, which is the first 5
safety zone that you see immediately off the runways. Nothing can be higher than the initial 6
surface of that runway. So they would not be able to increase those. But remember, the CLUP 7
only affects proposed development. So if they are there and they don’t increase the height of 8
them and they are just doing base levee protection or dredging or something like that then that 9
wouldn’t matter. More importantly I think what you have is they had this issue with the Sea 10
Scout Building when they were looking at doing development to that and moving it around. The 11
infrastructure, so if you had cranes out there, if you had tall pieces of equipment, those would 12
probably have to go through the FAA and certainly would have to go through the FAA to get a 13
no hazard determination, and probably get airplane FAA lights on top of them, the red lights that 14
sort of blink intermittently. So the equipment is probably the bigger issue there. Talking about a 15
levee you figure where the mean sea level is and not tremendously higher so that is probably not 16
the biggest issue. 17
18
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. We do know that the levees are not currently at an adequate 19
height. That is why the entire eastern portion of Palo Alto is in an AE8 Special Flood Zone. 20
They do need to be raised three, maybe five feet. So the question is are they in a location within 21
that range where they would be prohibited or are those levees outside? I ask that because 22
blocking the ability to provide flood protection and the safety and preservation of property is 23
huge. So we need to understand that if amending our Comprehensive Plan means we can’t fix 24
the flood issues. That is huge. If we know that the levees are beyond, and you will have to 25
forgive me but my packet maps were black and white and fuzzy, so I can’t get any sense of 26
where those distances and boundaries are from what we have. 27
28
Mr. Connolly: Right. Let me first address your first point. The CLUP is intended to provide for 29
two things. Number one is land use around the airport. Secondary to that is we want to make 30
sure that those using the airport, it is a public use airport, we want to make sure that it is safe for 31
them as well. So unless a levee provided some kind of an obstruction to that aviation safety it 32
wouldn’t be an issue. I don’t see the ALUC or this CLUP policy trying to stop levee protection, 33
certainly that is a bigger land use issue that is a bigger problem. 34
35
The second thing you might remember from the presentation that Gloria gave was the only 36
mandatory projects that have to go to the ALUC are General Plan Amendments, rezonings, 37
specific plans, and then changes to the Building Code. So if this was a remediation project 38
ALUC would never know about it. It would come down to these general plan policies that the 39
City is putting in place and hereby adopting this CLUP. The City would actually have the onus 40
of going through and making sure that all of this was accurate and wasn’t an obstruction to 41
aviation safety. So I don’t think you are going to have the problem but by taking the action and 42
making the recommendation hopefully you will make tonight the City would be put in a position 43
to be able to ensure that safety and that there won’t be any conflicts with the levee restoration. 44
45
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 10 of 19
Ms. Caporgno: I think the way we are interpreting this is a levee is not perceived as a 1
development project. A levee is protection project. The intent of this whole plan again is if you 2
were going to build a building protecting the building or even if the levee were going to be hit by 3
a plane I don’t think the levee is going to be at that height, or if there were going to be people in 4
the vicinity and it is so close to the airport you don’t want to have a safety issue with the 5
increased population. A levee is also a protection element for that area. I don’t see there to be 6
any conflict. 7
8
Ms. Humble: When I was working on the Baylands Master Plan and touring the Baylands with 9
the ranger I think that the levees right at the airport runway, the closest ones, are not really flood 10
protection – not really what they were depending on for flood protection from the Bay. What I 11
have noticed is as soon as you get this far from the runway you can be 29 feet high. 12
13
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. 14
15
Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Holman followed by Commissioner Keller. 16
17
Commissioner Holman: Just a couple things. Why is the LTP site not included in the AIA? Is it 18
because of the acquisition? 19
20
Ms. Humble: I was actually at the meeting when they decided not to revisit that boundary line 21
but I don’t really know the reason why. 22
23
Commissioner Holman: Is there any difficulty if we decided we did want to? There is no 24
harm/no foul if we do I would presume. So could we amend the map to include that area if there 25
is not a good reason not to? 26
27
Ms. Humble: It would probably have to start at the County. 28
29
Mr. Connolly: I can answer that question. It actually would, this has to start with the ALUC. 30
That boundary line wasn’t changed because the ALUC in going forward and developing this 31
CLUP didn’t feel that we needed to expand the boundary. That is a boundary that has been there 32
for 20 or 30 years. So didn’t really feel like that was an area that was close enough to the airport 33
development that any subsequent development there would necessitate having to increase the 34
AIA. Really what that would do is increase the area in which the ALUC would have its policies 35
effective. So that is an area that was so far south already it just wasn’t deemed to be that 36
important to include in there. 37
38
To answer your question you couldn’t adopt a different Airport Influence Area than the CLUP 39
because you wouldn’t have policies to back you up. 40
41
Ms. Caporgno: However, the City in evaluating development can be more stringent than the 42
plan that the ALUC has put forward and that we are incorporating. So we can protect that area if 43
that is important to the City. There is nothing that prevents us from doing that. 44
45
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 11 of 19
Commissioner Holman: Thank you for that. Kind of a clarification and follow up to 1
Commissioner Lippert’s question. The relationship between any action tonight and the future 2
user or tenant at the airport is moot, right? 3
4
Ms. Caporgno: Can you repeat that? 5
6
Commissioner Holman: The relationship between any actions tonight or recommendations 7
tonight and should there be a change of tenant or use at the airport is really moot and unaffected 8
by what we are doing tonight. 9
10
Ms. Caporgno: There would have to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan if that were to 11
occur. If it affected what you are approving tonight, hopefully approving. 12
13
Commissioner Holman: A couple of other little things here. Page L-7 and new text for L-7. 14
One thing I was not 100 percent clear on is this whole section is not language written by the City 15
but this is the language that is picked up from the CLUP, is that correct? 16
17
Ms. Humble: It is reworked it is not an exact quote. 18
19
Commissioner Holman: The reason I ask for that clarity, if you can tell me what might be 20
different, is because the encouraged referrals list. It mentions structures over 200 feet high and 21
that is not consistent with the rest of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan with the 50 foot height 22
limit. 23
24
Ms. Humble: Are you suggesting that we impose an even greater … I think that would be like 25
the other thing that Julie mentioned. We would have to do that on top of what the CLUP is 26
requiring. We would have to say in addition to what the CLUP is requiring we are saying that 27
buildings that are only 50 feet high would have to go to the ALUC. Is that what you mean? 28
29
Commissioner Holman: I guess what I am interested in is that there seems to be an anticipation 30
of projects that we would consider or entertain that would be 200 feet high and it is that kind of 31
anticipation that I am questioning. 32
33
Ms. Caporgno: I don’t think that is the case at all. It is just that they made an interpretation of 34
the requirement that a project of that height, if there were one, they would encourage referral so 35
we put it in here. Our City Staff doesn’t envision that that will occur that there will ever be a 36
need for that. That is part of the process for the County and so that is what we are identifying 37
here. I realize it is a little bit misleading because it sounds like something like that could occur 38
and we are not envisioning that. If there is a whole change in the City’s processes or policy it is 39
covered as far as what would be referred to the ALUC or encouraged to be referred to the 40
ALUC. 41
42
Commissioner Holman: So I want to stick with this just for a moment because you heard me say 43
before that language and written words are very important and do tend to influence perhaps one’s 44
thinking. So I am a little concerned with this language that is here. So is it possible that we 45
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 12 of 19
could change that 200 feet to a different number this evening without having to send it back to 1
the County? I understand what you are saying but. 2
3
Ms. Caporgno: I think you can because again this is something that is coming that is 4
encouraging referral it is not mandating referral. So if you want to change that, if you want to 5
recommend as part of your recommendation to Council that the language be changed that could 6
be done. 7
8
Mr. Connolly: If I could interject for just one moment. The City of Palo Alto’s rules would 9
trump the ALUC. So even though there might be a number here that is 100 or 200 feet, what the 10
City of Palo Alto allows if that is more restrictive, and in this case the general plan and zoning 11
rules are more restrictive, that would trump any kind of a guideline. This is just meant to be a 12
guideline I think, just an example of a project that might be what we call a minor project referral, 13
just a voluntary referral. 14
15
Commissioner Holman: I do understand that but again because of my previous point and here it 16
is even under encouraged referrals not even mandatory referrals so I am troubled by that kind of 17
inclusion. Julie? 18
19
Ms. Caporgno: I guess I am not quite sure of what you suggest for how it would be changed. I 20
think what I am understanding you to say is it is implying that there is going to be this type of 21
development and that is a concern for you. Is that correct? 22
23
Commissioner Holman: It is implying that it might encourage or be in anticipation of this kind 24
of project. You understand. You got the point. 25
26
Vice-Chair Tuma: Were you going to move onto another point? There were a couple of 27
Commissioners that indicated they had follow ups to that particular point. If you are not done 28
with that go right ahead. 29
30
Commissioner Holman: I had one last one but go right ahead. 31
32
Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert and then Commissioner Fineberg. 33
34
Commissioner Lippert: Just sort of reading between the lines and understanding where you are 35
going I think is for instance if the City Utility decided it was ideal area within the boundary to 36
put in a wind farm for instance and there was a limitation of 200 feet they could do that but if it 37
is lesser than that it would be a new structure, it wouldn’t be like an antenna or something like 38
that, would that be permitted? 39
40
Ms. Caporgno: Again, this is just what we refer to them. So we would be making the decision 41
as to whether or not we were going to approve any of this type of development. It is just if 42
somebody proposed something what is the cutoff for referral to the ALUC as opposed what is 43
something that the City – and it is not even a requirement it would just be encouraged at that 44
height that it be referred to them so they could comment. The City would not be obligated to do 45
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 13 of 19
it nor obviously is the City going to anticipate that it would be approving that type of 1
development. 2
3
Vice-Chair Tuma: Let me just ask a question of Mark from the County. Is the 200 foot that is 4
across the entire County that is not just simply the City of Palo Alto? 5
6
Mr. Connolly: No, that was just an example. It has nothing to do with any zoning rule or 7
general plan height, anything like that. 8
9
Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. 10
11
Mr. Connolly: The next one in the bullet there, the 50 percent, is meant to be a square footage 12
limitation. So if you had a building and you doubled it size that is something that the ALUC 13
encourages a referral from. Really, the reason there is you are probably not going to end up with 14
an increase of significant height of something like that you are probably going to end up with 15
something just necessitating a navigation easement. Something that the County would use and 16
the subsequent occupants of that structure would use as an acknowledgement tool that there are 17
going to be airplanes flying over their head. So when a new person takes over the building they 18
know there are going to be airplanes around there and it cuts down a lot of times on a lot of noise 19
complaints that you get. 20
21
Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks. Commissioner Fineberg, you had a follow up as well? 22
23
Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. Understanding that these are intended to be criteria for 24
encouraging referrals and that Commissioner Holman’s concern is that they be viewed as 25
possible entitlements I am wondering if rather than changing the criteria we could either include 26
a footnote or an extra bracketed item something like referral criteria are not to be viewed as 27
entitlements or maybe some way to word it in a way that it is absolutely clear-cut that it is simply 28
criteria for referral not an entitlement, not development criteria. Does that make sense? 29
30
Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Holman, you have a couple more? 31
32
Commissioner Holman: Just one other thing for clarity. Review by the City, for the record 33
where will the City review procedures be identified and when? I know it is not here. 34
35
Ms. Caporgno: Well, anything out of the Baylands in this area would be Site and Design so it 36
would go through our Site and Design process if there was any sort of development proposed. 37
So those are already in place. We wouldn’t identify – I guess we could put some reference in 38
here if that would make the Commission more comfortable that it would go through that process. 39
40
Commissioner Holman: That’s all. Thank you. 41
42
Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller, a few questions. Just to beat an already dead horse so 43
to speak, a change to the airport operator has no effect on what we are doing? A change to the 44
airport use, for example if it were no longer to be an airport, would require its own change to the 45
Comprehensive Plan in order to implement the use being no longer an airport use. Therefore, in 46
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 14 of 19
concert with changing the airport use to a non-airport use we would also remove the references 1
to the CLUP. Is that correct? 2
3
Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. That would be considered probably a clean up to the 4
Comprehensive Plan as far as removal of the references to the CLUP. 5
6
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. My next question is I believe that you were going to offer us 7
information about the fact that this Airport Influence Area extends beyond the boundaries of 8
Santa Clara County into San Mateo County. Perhaps you can tell us a little bit about that. Let 9
me just identify a few questions that you can address. First were representatives of San Mateo 10
County or East Palo Alto participating in the development of the CLUP? Do San Mateo County 11
and/or East Palo Alto enforce its own version of the CLUP requirements? 12
13
Mr. Connolly: Thank you, Commissioner Keller. Yes, the County of San Mateo is involved in 14
this. This airport is what we call a joint use airport. It unfortunately has the onus of having a 15
county line going through the northern end of the runway. So where you saw in the safety zones, 16
in fact I can probably show you that. So the northern area there north is going to your left on this 17
map. Everything that is dotted there is actually in San Mateo County. The ALUC policies only 18
affect Santa Clara County just like the City of Palo Alto’s policies and general plan and zoning 19
only apply to the City of Palo Alto. So what we did here is create a document that included 20
those safety zones so it would make it easy for the County of San Mateo to adopt this very same 21
plan because it is within everybody’s best interest to adopt a plan like this that is updated with 22
nice new safety zones, and noise contours, and safety and noise policies to afford for the 23
betterment of everybody using the airport and the people that use the land around it. 24
25
So to answer your second question, yes we included in fact the first meeting we had here with 26
the Planning Staff we invited County of San Mateo ALUC Staff, and City of East Palo Alto 27
Planning Staff. If you look at the area there it really does affect the City of East Palo Alto quite 28
substantially they have that whole redevelopment area there to the east and the west of 101 there. 29
We got very little comments from them, which leads me to answering your third question of is it 30
their responsibility to implement their own? 31
32
It is going to be their responsibility when the County of San Mateo ALUC adopts a very similar 33
document. Right now they have something called CCAG, they operate in a COG they don’t 34
have the money to put into this. They have other airports and other priorities. So they don’t 35
have the money to do this right now so we tried to make this as easy as possible for them when 36
they do get to that point. When they get to the point of adopting a CLUP like this they will have 37
to go through the same general plan amendment. I suspect, and I am not portraying myself as a 38
planner for San Mateo County or East Palo Alto here, but I think they have a significant amount 39
of amendment that this would require to adopt these policies unlike the City of Palo Alto. There 40
just isn’t that much because it is mostly Baylands conservatory out there near Palo Alto Airport 41
for the City of Palo Alto. 42
43
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Now, this is a great map to show because on that map that 44
you are showing up there the butterfly wings on the left if you will and the dark blue or purple to 45
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 15 of 19
the left, am I correct in the statement that that region is in land that is not within the City of Palo 1
Alto but is actually owned by the City of Palo Alto? Is that the Faber tract? 2
3
Ms. Humble: Ravenswood Preserve. 4
5
Commissioner Keller: Is that owned by the City of Palo Alto or owned by somebody else? 6
7
Ms. Humble: Owned by the City of Palo Alto. 8
9
Commissioner Keller: So we own that land. It is San Mateo County. Is it actually in East Palo 10
Alto or unincorporated? 11
12
Ms. Humble: I did know this but I would have to check my Baylands Master Plan. I can’t say 13
for sure. Our rangers are there managing it but they have no legal authority there. 14
15
Commissioner Keller: Okay. So the issue is that at least for this particular map, the safety zone 16
is at least within land that Palo Alto controls. The height contours are maybe a different story. 17
The noise contours are a different story for East Palo Alto. Okay, thank you. 18
19
I agree with Commissioner Lippert’s concern about the height issue and the potential for sea 20
level rise. I agree with Commissioner Fineberg’s comments about the levee height. What is 21
interesting to me is the height of the landfill and I am assuming that the height of the landfill is 22
already such that it is sufficiently away from the contours to not have a problem. That the 23
proposed closure and capping of the landfill is not going to cause any problem for the height 24
contours. 25
26
Mr. Connolly: I am not actually familiar with where that is. Maybe Gloria could show me 27
where that is and we could look at the Part 77 Map. 28
29
Vice-Chair Tuma: If you could indicate on mike where she is pointing to, Mark. 30
31
Mr. Connolly: Yes, so what she is looking at there is the outer boundary of the 154-foot contour 32
level. So this is above mean sea level. That outer one there means that a structure from sea level 33
would not penetrate this surface until it was 154 above mean sea level. Picture this as a football 34
field or a sports stadium where the runway is the field and these contours go out in a conical 35
fashion in a circle all the way around. Now the two middle ones are the same. The space that 36
you see between the real tight contours closest to the runway and then that first buildable sort of 37
racetrack those are the same mean sea level. You just get higher the further you go out. This is a 38
map again just used by the ALUC. The ALUC uses this more as an identifier for height 39
obstructions. The FAA uses this to issue no hazard determinations. So they use it as just an 40
indicator, a trigger if you will, of what might be an obstruction to aviation safety. 41
42
If you had a landfill in the corner over there and you were going to cap it, just throw dirt on 43
there, sort of reclaim it, remediate it. If you from mean sea level didn’t do anything that would 44
increase the height of that landfill more than 150 feet above mean sea level you wouldn’t have an 45
issue and you wouldn’t be an obstruction to aviation safety. 46
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 16 of 19
1
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I sure hope that the landfill is not going to be over 154 feet. 2
With respect to the mandatory referrals and the encourage referrals, are those things for changes 3
that are within the AIA boundary? Let’s suppose for discussion sake that the height limit of 200 4
feet were changed to 100 feet and Stanford Hospital were to build maybe some project that was 5
over 100 feet. Would that be referred even though it is outside the AIA? 6
7
Mr. Connolly: NO AUDIBLE ANSWER 8
9
Commissioner Keller: Well, then in some sense the lead in to this mandatory and encouraged 10
referrals at least from my reading doesn’t make clear that these are limited to changes that affect 11
areas within the AIA. 12
13
Also there is an error on the reference to the Airport Safety Map which is it says the key PAO 14
CLUP maps and tables provide guidance for the project review for determining if a proposed use 15
is compatible with respect to safety, refer to the Airport Safety Zone Map. It is not on page 3-2 it 16
is on page 3-12 of the CLUP. 17
18
So Vice-Chair Tuma suggests that it say development limitations on lands within the Airport 19
Influence Area. However, I do think it is useful to put that as a lead in for the mandatory 20
referrals included. What is interesting is those two sections there sort of stand on their own, 21
there is no lead in into that. So some language for example, Santa Clara County standard referral 22
criteria for developments or changes within the Airport Influence Area are, and then you have 23
those two columns. I think that would handle the problem with the fact that there is no lead in to 24
what these lists are and second, would make clear that these are the criteria by the Santa Clara 25
County Airport Land Use Commission. So it indicates it is their standard criteria and not the 26
City of Palo Alto’s criteria. I think that would mean that the 200-foot issue should not be 27
confused with the Palo Alto criteria. 28
29
So let me ask one final question and then I am going to make a motion. My final question is a 30
compound question. There are CLUPs for San Jose International Airport, for Palo Alto Airport, 31
and for Reed Hillview Airport. I think there is one in south county somewhere like in Gilroy or 32
something like that. Is there currently a CLUP for Moffett Field Airport? 33
34
Mr. Connolly: Let me explain how this works. This is the answer to the bi-fold question from 35
the state. The state lets Airport Land Use Commissions, which are required to be in every 36
county in the State of California, PUC mandates this. You can provide protection for these 37
airports one of two ways. You can take this approach, which is an airport specific land use plan, 38
CLUP, or ALUC can have an overall countywide CLUP. What the ALUC is doing in an effort 39
to better afford for the specific land use issues of every airport we are going through and we are 40
cleaning up all of the airports in the County of Santa Clara and developing airport specific 41
CLUPs for them. Certainly the issues at Palo Alto Airport are very different than San Jose 42
International. So we are currently in the process of doing a San Jose International CLUP right 43
now. So that is what this is before you. 44
45
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 17 of 19
The San Jose International CLUP is much bigger undertaking and it is not unlike something you 1
might have at Moffett Field. The problem for the ALUC is Moffett Field is federal airport. The 2
state mandates that the ALUC only provide protection for public use airports. So that is the 3
federal government’s. We are looking with County Council to advise us if it would be 4
appropriate to even put together a land use plan in the eventuality that maybe Moffett’s 5
regulations were changed or maybe the federal government turned it back over to maybe a public 6
use airport with the increased needs as a result of overcrowding of Oakland Airport and SFO. 7
We are looking at possibly doing that. Right now the state law says that the ALUC has no 8
purview to do that. 9
10
Commissioner Keller: Let me just follow that up with one related thing, which is some people 11
have proposed that high-speed rail go along 101 and presumably would have to go over the 12
overpasses. So you would have the surface of 101, you would have the overpasses, and then 20 13
some feet above that you would have the top of rail. Then so many feet above that you would 14
have the catenary’s wires there. Would you anticipate that there may be an issue with respect to 15
either Moffett Field where this not going to be a CLUP or with respect to the San Jose 16
International Airport that such a high structure would be problematic for high-speed rail going 17
over 101? 18
19
Vice-Chair Tuma: Excuse me before you answer that Commissioner Keller, I think we are 20
getting a bit far a field for the issue that is before us tonight. I think the question is interesting 21
but certainly Moffett Field is not within the AIA and it is not within the bounds of what we are 22
discussing. So I think perhaps if you are interested in discussion about that maybe that could 23
happen outside the confines of this meeting. 24
25
Commissioner Keller: Well, if it is a quick answer perhaps he can give it and leave it at that. 26
27
Mr. Connolly: Well, maybe I can relate Commissioner Keller’s question to a relationship to the 28
Palo Alto Airport. So say the corridor went along 101 and you did have the increased height of 29
the railway and the wires and the support structures and that did increase taller than any 30
development that could take place in the City of Palo Alto. That is something that ALUC is 31
already familiar with that has happened at Reed Hillview Airport. The VTA light rail is going 32
right along Tully and across Capital Expressway there and that exact same thing is happening. 33
What happened there is VTA came to the ALUC and we did the same analysis and it ended up 34
being okay. So I would anticipate the same kind of thing if it happened at Palo Alto Airport. 35
Whether it be Caltrain or VTA or whoever is taking the lead agency role at that point would be 36
doing their homework and would come before the ALUC to get a good determination of safety 37
on that. 38
39
Commissioner Keller: Thank you very much. So if I may make a motion? 40
41
Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I do have one question of Staff that I think may be relevant to this. 42
43
Commissioner Keller: Sure, why don’t I defer until after you ask your question. 44
45
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 18 of 19
Vice-Chair Tuma: The question is that in the presentation, Gloria, you referred to the City of 1
Palo Alto’s ability to tier off the County’s Negative Declaration. The County is obviously the 2
lead agency here. In making a recommendation for Council to take an action are we adopting the 3
Negative Declaration? How is what we are doing here tonight impacting or not impacting the 4
Negative Declaration? 5
6
Mr. Connolly: Do you want me to answer that, Staff? 7
8
Ms. Caporgno: I think that the Negative Declaration has already been approved by the County. 9
Unless the Commission has an issue with the Negative Declaration you are not expected to adopt 10
it because it is already an approved document. 11
12
Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks. So with that I will close the public hearing and I do believe we 13
have a motion from Commissioner Keller. 14
15
MOTION 16
17
Commissioner Keller: Thank you Vice-Chair Tuma. I move that we recommend the Staff 18
recommendation with the following two amendments the text for page L-7. The first amendment 19
is to correct the error referring to Airport Safety Zone Map is page 3-12 not 3-2. The second is 20
that a line appear after the fourth bullet under ALC review and before Mandatory Referrals and 21
Encourage Referrals include the line, “Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 22
ALUC, standard referral criteria are as follows:” 23
24
Vice-Chair Tuma: Is there a second? 25
26
SECOND 27
28
Commissioner Holman: Second. 29
30
Vice-Chair Tuma: Seconded by Commissioner Holman. Commissioner Keller, do you wish to 31
speak to your motion? 32
33
Commissioner Keller: I don’t need to say anything other than it would be useful when we do the 34
revision of the next update of the Comprehensive Plan that we actually include the maps in the 35
Comprehensive Plan when it gets published in 2010 instead of nearly referring to them. It would 36
be easier and more user-friendly to not have to refer to an external document. That is in the 37
long-term or not so long-term when we update this. 38
39
I also would like to thank Staff Member Gloria Humble for an excellent presentation. It was 40
very easy to follow and figure out what the issues are. Thank you. 41
42
Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Holman, do you wish to speak to your second? 43
44
Commissioner Holman: Only one little thing besides commending Gloria Humble for a VGSR 45
since this an item of so many acronyms, a very good Staff Report. Your base of knowledge in 46
City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 19 of 19
the projects you bring forward to us and your obvious engagement with them is always 1
impressive and very much appreciated. So high marks. That’s it. 2
3
Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert, do you have comment? 4
5
Commissioner Lippert: I have a friendly amendment here. I believe that the CLUP and the 6
Airport Influence Area should be made appendixes to the Baylands Master Plan where they 7
influence that document. 8
9
Commissioner Keller: Does Staff have any comments about that? 10
11
Ms. Caporgno: Since the item before you is really the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan if 12
that is something that the Commission recommends then the next time we amend the Baylands 13
Master Plan we can incorporate that. But as part of this process that is really outside the purview 14
of what we are doing right now I think. 15
16
Commissioner Lippert: How would you recommend that be structured? I know that the 17
Baylands Master Plan has lengthy history that is very important. In fact the City Council and the 18
Parks and Recreation Commission have come and said how valuable that document is in terms of 19
documenting all influences on the Baylands. So what I would hate is for this document, which is 20
important in terms of the Airport Influence Area and particularly the heights as well as the noise 21
in particular. 22
23
Ms. Humble: Every map that you have seen here tonight are in the Baylands Master Plan now. 24
25
Commissioner Lippert: Great. 26
27
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, with Chair Garber absent) 28
29
Vice-Chair Tuma: Great. With that Commissioners, are we ready to vote? All those in favor of 30
the motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That passes unanimously with Chair Garber not 31
participating. With that we will take a three-minute break to shuffle the parties and we will come 32
back and go into item two. Thank you. 33
34
Chair Garber: For the record, Secretary, Chair Garber is back in the Chair. This is item number 35
two, 2180 El Camino Real. The initiation of 1) a zone change from Neighborhood Commercial 36
District to Planned Community District for a mixed use project having 61,960 square feet of 37
floor area including 8,000 square feet of grocery, intended for JJ&F Market, 5,580 square feet of 38
other retail, 14 affordable one-bedroom residential units, 39,980 square feet of office use, for a 39
total floor area ratio of 1.23:1 inclusive of 1.06 nonresidential FAR, and two levels of below-40
grade parking facilities and surface parking facilities providing 227 parking spaces on the 41
property, and 2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use 42
designation, allowing for a 1.15:1 nonresidential FAR, to a site currently designated as 43
Neighborhood Commercial. Would the Staff care to make a presentation? 44
45
This page was intentionally left blank
1
PowerPoint Presentation to the Planning & Transportation Commision on Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Santa
Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport (PAO CLUP)
The State established the ALUC, to provide for
orderly growth within areas surrounding public
airports.
To accomplish their task, the ALUC wrote the
CLUP.
The PAO CLUP contains guidelines for new land use
and development within the area surrounding the
Palo Alto Airport--specifically with regard to noise,
safety, height, and overflight.
Some acronyms that are used through out this
presentation are...
The presentation is divided into 4 sections.
This first section will provide some back-
ground about the relationship between the
ALUC, the CLUP, and the City.
Attachment I
Attachment I
2
The State placed responsibility for enforcing the
guidelines on the local jurisdiction.
As a result, the City and the ALUC are in a part-
nership to provide for this orderly growth.
To facilitate the partnership, the State requires that
the City’s regulations be consistent with the CLUP
guidelines.
Palo Alto’s existing regulations were already
consistent with the CLUP guidelines.
However, to meet the letter of the law, the City
must take certain steps to, tangibly, establish and
demonstrate this consistency.
The next topic will clarify what those steps are
and what action is being recommend.
The action being recommended is to adopt a
resolutoin to amend the Comp Plan to incorpo-
rate the PAO CLUP.
3
The recommendation is based on Section 4.2.2
of the PAO CLUP which prescribes how to
establish and demonstrate the state-required
consistency.
Very briefly, the steps are:
1. Incorporate the AIA and CLUP policies into
City regulations
2. Provide ongoing review
Step 1 will be accomplished by ...
Adding the AIA to Map L-2
Adding Policy L-2B
4
Also, this supplemental text is being added
to help future uses of the Comprehensive
Plan.
It describe how to use the CLUP and
interact with the ALUC.
The 2nd step for establishing the state-
required consistency is to provide ongoing
review....
The 3rd topic...the ALUC Review Process.
The next several slides will pertain to:
- the role of the ALUC in the Review,
- the actual PAO CLUP guidelines
(including avigation easements)
- mandatory versus voluntary review.
5
The role of the ALUC is to advise the City.
The City refers a proposal to the ALUC.
They review it for consistency with the guidelines.
They advise the City whether or not they find it to be
consistent.
If not, they may advise the City as to how they think
it can be made consistent.
They may even advise the City as to how they think a
consistent proposal can be made yet more compat-
ible.
As stated earlier, their role is advisory; however, the
City is obligated to ensure that both policy changes
and any new development are consistent with the
CLUP guidelines.
The CLUP guidelines and the ALUC review are
applicable only to NEW development and only to
proposals WITHIN the AIA.
The AIA boundary follows the San Francisquito
Creek, the City boundary, Charleston Slough, and
Highway 101.
The developable area east of the Charleston Slough
which includes the Former LATP Site is not
included.
The CLUP guidelines, against which proposals are
reviewed, are fairly well expressed in key maps and
tables in the CLUP. For example, the Safety Zone
Map describes zones that radiate from the runway.
Each zone has different level of risk. A correspond-
ing table in the CLUP lists the land uses that are
allowed in each of the zones.
6
In general, proposals involving policies that affect the AIA
are “Required Referrals”. For example:
- Anything to do with the Airport Master Plan
- Changes to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, or
Building Regulatins that affect the AIA.
- Also any Specific plans that that affect the AIA.
- And finally, any development proposals that involve a
change to any of the policy documents listed above
e.g., a project that requires a zone change.
Like the Safety Zone map, the Noise Contour Map also
has a corresponding table that describes the allowable,
or compatible land uses for each noise level.
Like the Safety Zone map, the height limits are most
severe at the runway and lessen as they radiate outward.
7
“Encouraged, or voluntary, referrals” include:
- Major infrastructure improvements that would
promote urban development
- New residential development of 5+ units
- High density uses e.g., hospitals and theaters.
- Low mobility uses e.g., senior housing
- Structures over 200 ft high
- Proposals that increase existing square
footage by 50%
The last section of the presentation covers some of
the Administrative procedures associated with the
the adoption of the CLUP e.g.,
the public outreach and environmental review that
got us to where we are now, and
the findings for taking the next step--to amend the
Comp Plan.
Staff expects that the ALUC will not make recom-
mendations that differ from what the City would
already have required--.with the exception of aviga-
tion easements. Prior to incorporating the CLUP
guideines, the City had no policy regarding avigation
easements.
If an avigation easement is a condition of approval
for a proposal, then, then City staff will be respon-
sible for making sure that easement is recorded
8
When the County adopted the CLUP they did an
Initial Study and adopted a Negative Declaration.
And, at that time, the City of Palo Alto participated
in the review of those environmental documents. The
City was satisfied that the analysis was adequate.
Having participated in that review, Palo Alto is now
entitled to tier off the County’s adopted Negative
Declaration rather than perform a separate analysis.
The Public Outreach for the CLUP was conducted by
the ALUC staff. It began in early 2008 and included
multiple meetings with city staff, elected officials,
community groups, and special interest groups.
For the August 11, Community Outreach Meeting,
noticies were sent in the mail, and ads were placed in
the newspapers. It was held here in the Council
Chambers. The only issue that was raised at that
meeting was about the logistics of implmenting a
requirement for an avigation easement.
The incorporation of the CLUP policies into the
Comprehensive Plan is based on public interest,
health, safety, and welfare. The policies:
1. Serve to further ensure appropriate development
in an area with special risks and
2. Serve to provide notice of those special risks.
4
Questions submitted by Planning and Transportation
Commissioner Fineberg on Wednesday, April 29, 2009.
1) Please describe involvement of the public, City Staff, PTC, and/or Council with the
CLUP before it was adopted by the County. What was public feedback from the Aug
11, 2008 Community Outreach Meeting?In February, 2008, ALUC staff began
discussions with City staff as well as representatives from neighboring jurisdictions to
address concerns and to outline the responsibilities of the City. Between February and
August, ALUC staff conducted an outreach meeting with the Joint Community Relations
Committee (JCRC) and attended a City Selection meeting, with Council Member Morton,
to inform other city-elected officials about the PAO CLUP. On August 11, 2008, the
ALUC staff held a community outreach meeting in Palo Alto to formally present the
proposed PAO CLUP to the local community. At the August meeting, only one issue was
raised: Planning and Transportation Commissioner Keller asked for clarification regarding
the logistics of implementing a requirement for an avigation easement.
2) The airport is located at the northeastern edge of Santa Clara County (NOT
northwestern) as stated in Attachment A: CLUP, section 2.1 paragraph 1, first
sentence.ALUC staff has indicated that they believe the PAO CLUP description is
accurate.
Attachment J
3) What are the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundaries for the CLUP? Specifically,
does it include the areas at the end of San Antonio Avenue (Google daycare, ex-Los
Altos water treatment plant), the city services yard and animal shelter along E.
Bayshore, and Embarcadero Road at East Bayshore. If any of these areas are within
the AIA, then will adoption of the CLUP by Palo Alto impact any of the proposed
developments in ways that have not already been discussed? (Maps in packet are small,
black and white so I can’t discern boundary areas.) The AIA boundary is feature based
and (in a clockwise direction) follows San Francisquito Creek, the City Boundary,
Charleston Slough, and Highway 101. The area east of the Charleston Slough, including
the Google daycare and former LATP site, is not included in the AIA. The Municipal
Services Center and Animal Shelter are within the AIA; however, the PAO CLUP
guidelines will not impose new development restrictions.
4) Noise contour map (Figure 5) How does the new map 3.3.6.1 on page 3-6 compare
with the current noise map used in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan? Please discuss
Neg. Dec. page 19 2nd paragraph. The two noise contour maps are similar but not
congruent. In general, the PAO CLUP map implies more intense noise and reflects a 10-
year difference in age. In some places the PAO CLUP contours extend several hundred
feet farther out than the corresponding contours of the Comprehensive Plan map. These
maps indicate general noise levels but individual development proposals would be
required to prepare site-specific noise analysis. Regarding the Negative Declaration, this
paragraph explains that requirements for sound-reduction construction techniques are
required when the exposure is over 60db. Since the PAO CLUP is meant to communicate
development requirements, it needn’t to show contours less than 60db because they don’t
trigger construction or development requirements.
5) Has the City Attorney reviewed / approved the proposed Avigation Easement Deed?
Any comments? The Attorney’s Office drafted the proposed avigation easement.
6) Will adoption of the CLUP impact flood protection levees and other protective
measures that will be developed by the South Bay Shoreline Study? The flood
protection levees would not be a required referral to the ALUC. (Also see
“COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION” section of the CMR.)
7) Per the Neg. Dec., page 18, the 65-dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour covers the Palo
Alto Baylands Nature Preserve in San Mateo County? Does the preserve include San
Mateo County land? If so, does the Palo Alto Comp Plan govern San Mateo County
land? The following excerpt from the Baylands Master Plan 2008 responds to these
three questions: “What we now call the Faber Tract is part of the 230 acres of Palo Alto
Baylands [Nature Preserve] within East Palo Alto/San Mateo County…. Although the Palo
Alto rangers are responsible for trail maintenance, weed control, and resource management,
they cannot issue citations for law violations outside of Palo Alto. For this and other
reasons, the City has a cooperative agreement with the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service to
“patrol” the Faber-Laumeister tract as part of the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge complex.
There is no cost to the City for this service.” How does one reconcile a 65 dBA noise
level with dedicated parkland outdoor use? Land use and land use compatibility in the
Palo Alto Baylands has been debated for over 50 years. When the City adopted the original
Baylands Master Plan in 1979, it recognized the existence of the urbanized portion of the
Baylands and established policies to contain that urbanization. Also, in the 1970s, the City
revised the Airport Master Plan to disallow what was, at that time, an approved plan for
expansion in order to limit further impacts, including noise, on the natural and recreation
areas of the Baylands