HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-19 City Council (3)City of Palo Alto
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:MAY 19, 2003 CMR:274:03
SUBJECT:1903 EMBARCADERO ROAD [02-D-11, 02-UP-30]: REQUEST BY
BELLOMO ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO (PROPERTY OWNER), COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
(LEASEHOLDER) AND DR. JIM BRANDT (FIXED-BASED
OPERATOR) FOR SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF
A +1,600 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, TO PROVIDE THE OFFICES
FOR VICTOR AVIATION (A TENANT CURRENTLY LOCATED
AT THE AIRPORT). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PER SECTION
15301. ZONE DISTRICT: PF(D).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board
recommend that the City Council approve the following:
1.Site and Design review for the construction of a new +1,600 square foot building at
the Palo Alto Airport, located in the Palo Alto Baylands.
Conditional Use Permit to allow a general business office use to occupy the new
building.
The project site is located at the Palo Alto Airport. The airport is located in the Palo Alto
Baylands, which has a Site and Design (D) overlay zone district. Any development at the
airport is required to comply with the policies and programs of the 1979 Baylands Master
Plan (amended in 1987) and the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Palo Alto
Municipal Code, Section 18.82, requires all development within (D) districts, other than
minor additions to previously approved projects, to be reviewed by the City Council. As
CMR:274:03 Page 1 of 4
the proposed building will be used as a general business office, a Conditional Use Permit
will be required.
The project includes a new +1,600 square foot building, plus exterior modifications and
repairs to improve the existing commercial/retail building. The new building would be
constructed next to the existing building at the south side adjacent to the parking lot. As
the project site is located in a flood zone, the new building would be raised approximately
four feet above gade to complying with federal flood zone requirements.
The new building would provide spaces for an office, storage, reception, conference
room and restrooms. The design of the new building recalls features of the existing
building. Wide trellises and sunscreens on the addition relate to the wide overhangs of the
existing building and new full height glass panel windows would be similar to the
existing window system.
The style of the new building will be more contemporary than the existing building, as
industrial building materials are proposed. A stained, wood-siding panel system will be
used on the exterior walls. The front of the building, racing Embarcadero Road, will
feature a curved full height glass wall system with concrete return walls on either side of
the windows.
The landscape plan includes a water feature in the form of a shallow concrete pool. The
pool would contain kiosks showing aviation and the history of the Palo Alto Airport. The
pool would be surrounded by beds of drought-tolerant native gasses. Existing
landscaping next to the building and adjacent to the parking area will be improved.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning and Transportation Commission
The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval of the project on
December 18, 2002. The Commission staff report prepared for that meeting (Attachment
C) outlined the significant issues regarding the Conditional Use Permit and how the
proposed project would consolidate uses that are currently located in various buildings
throughout the airport site and in other off-site locations.
The Commission received testimony from Victor Slone, a tenant of Dr. Brandt who will
occupy the new building, regarding his proposed operations at the airport and the
potential for sales tax revenue to the City.
The Commission discussed the remodel of the existing building and the proposed design
of the new building. The Commission was supportive of the applicant’s proposed design,
but noted that large areas of window glass could impact the site. The Commission
recommended that reduced-glare windows with a low-emissivity (low-e) rating be used
to improve the thermal performance and minimize glare. The Commission also
CMR:274:03 Page 2 of 4
recommended that the color selected to stain the wood siding be sensitive to the Baylands
environment.
The Commission discussed the parking and circulation plan. The area leased by Mr.
Brandt will accommodate the required number of parking spaces for the existing building
and the new construction. The Commission received testimony from members of the
public indicating that there are existing problems with parking and circulation at the
airport. Visitors to the site were not using the designated parking spaces, but rather
parking in the driveway between the Municipal Golf Course parking lot and the airport
buildings, which has resulted in circulation problems. The Commission recommended
that additional signage be added to the airport site to direct visitors to the appropriate
parking spaces to help reduce the parking and circulation issues.
Architectural Review Board
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of the Site and Design
application on January !6, 2003. The ARB raised design-related questions that were
similar to those raised by the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding the
windows and wood stain. The ARB noted its support of the ~een-building goals of the
project (Attachment F).
The ARB focused on the proposed height of the building and landscaping. The
landscaping plan was revised by the applicant and reviewed by the ARB on May 1, 2003.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
As noted in the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting minutes of December
18, 2002 (Attachment D, page 25), Mr. Slone would consolidate his sales and
administrative offices within the new building. Victor Aviation does generate sales taxes
for the City of Palo Alto. The consolidation of operations and the establishment of a
facility to promote the sales of aircraft could bring additional tax revenue to the City. To
the extent that Victor Aviation expands its capacity and is able to accrue sales tax locally,
the City would receive additional revenues. It should be noted that staff is not allowed to
divulge sales tax data on individual company sales per State law. Because of the
complicated sales tax regulations and laws which affect the levy and distribution of sales
taxes, the City of Palo Alto does not receive al! of the sales taxes generated by this
company. This situation makes it difficult for staff to estimate new, incremental revenues
based on Victor Aviation’s expansion. Palo Alto staff will be working to identify
potential opportunities for Victor Aviation to direct additional sales taxes to the City of
Palo Alto. Development of a +1,600 square foot building would yield, on a one-time
basis, approximately $30,000 in Development Impact fees, payable prior to issuance of a
building permit.
CMR:274:03 Page 3 of 4
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
All proposed development on this site is subject to Site and Design review and must
comply with the policies and progams of the 1979 Baylands Master Plan (amended in
1987) and the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project does not represent
any change to existing City policies and complies with the adopted policies and programs
of the City, as discussed in the December 18, 2002 Planning and Transportation
Commission staff report (Attachment C, Page 6).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Vicinity Map
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Draft Record of Land Use Approval
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report, December 18,
2002
Verbatim Minutes, December 18, 2002 Planning & Transportation
Commission Meeting
Architectural Review Board Staff Report, January 16, 2003
Verbatim Minutes, January 16, 2003 Architectural Review Board
Meeting
Sustainability Statement
Project Plans (City Council Members only)
PREPARED BY:
STEVEN TURNER
Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
Director
LIE
g and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:EMIl@HArRISON
Assistant City Manager
cc:Bellomo Architects, 102 University Ave # B Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dr. Jim Brandt, 560 Center Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Victor Slone, 1900 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Pat Roy, Roy Properties, 1660 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 204, San Jose, CA 95125
CMR:274:03 Page 4 of 4
Atta,~nment A
This mad is a produ~ of the
City of Palo Al[o GIS
100’
Attachment B
APPROVAL NO. 2003-
RECORD OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE
APPROVAL FOR 1903 EMBARCADERO ROAD: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW [02-UP-30, 02-D-II] (JIM BRANDT, FIXED
BASED OPERATOR
On May __, 2003, the City Council approved a conditional
use permit and site and design review for construction of a new
±1,600 square foot building, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On August 14, 2002, Bellomo Architects, on behalf of
the City of Palo Alto (property owner), Counzy of Santa Clara
(leaseholder) and Jim Brandt (fixed-based operator), applied for a
conditiona! use permit and site and design review for the
construction of a new ±1,600 square foot building and related
landscaping improvements at the Palo Alto Municipal Airport ("The
Project"), at 1903 Embarcadero Road.
B. The Palo Alto Municipal Airport is located in the Palo
Alto Baylands, which is zoned as Public Facility with a Site and
Design overlay district (PF(D)). A General Business office use.is a
conditiona! use within this zone district. As the airport is
located in an environmentally sensitive area, the Site and Design
designation requires specific findings to be reviewed by the City
Council.
C. On December 18, 2002, the Planning and Transportation
Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit (02-
UP-30) and site and design review, with conditions, and forwarded
The Project to the Architectural Review Board for review.
D. On January 16, February 20, and May i, 2003, the
Architectura! Review Board reviewed The Project, and recommended
approva! with conditions.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review. The City as the lead
agency for the project has determined that it is categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under
Guideline Section 15303, which exempts the construction of a
limited number of new, smal! facilities less than 2,500 square.
feet.
000302 syn 0091213
SECTION 3.Conditional Use Permit Findings
i. The proposed airport related use, at the proposed
location, will not be detrimenta! or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and wil! not be detrimental to public
health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, in that the new
building will allow an existing use to consolidate administrative
and aircraft sales office space currently located throughout the
airport complex. Consolidation of existing space is not expected to
significantly increase the operations at the airport. The addition
will be !ocated in a developed area at the airport and will not
encroach into the open space areas of the Baylands. Construction of
the new building and remode! of the existing building will bring
needed improvements to the site, which has not been modified since
it was constructed in 1976.
2. The proposed airport related use will be located and
conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan and the purposes of this title, in that the proposed project,
as conditioned, will comply with 1979 Baylands Master Plan (amended
in 1987), including recommendations for the airport, "(i) In
general, make no changes in the airport activities that will
increase intensity of airport use or will significantly intrude
into open space. (2) Provide a strip of planting, consistent with
the existing development and in character with the Water Quality
Control Plant across the road, at the airport from its entrance
east along Embarcadero Road to it’s junction with the shoreline
road." The project will also comply with the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, Policy T-57, "Support the continued vitality
and effectiveness of the Palo Alto Airport wi~thout significantly
increasing its intensity or intruding into open space areas. The
airport should remain limited to a single runway and two fixed-
based operators." The applicant has not requested to add an
additional runway and will not add additional fixed-based
operators.
SECTION 4.Conditional Use Permit Granted. Conditional
Use Permit No. 02-UP-30 is granted for the construction of an
±1,600 square foot building to contain an airport related use,
subject to the conditions of approval in Section 9 of this record.
SECTION 5.Architectural Review Findings
i.The design is consistent and compatible with
applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan in that the
project complies with Policy T-57 of the Comprehensive Plan, which
states, "Support the continued vitality and effectiveness of the
Palo Alto Airport without si~ificantly increasing its intensity or
intruding into open space areas. The airport should remain limited
000302 syn 0091213
to a single runway and two fixed-based operators.
2.The design is compatible with the immediate
environment of the site in that the building will be located in a
developed area at the Palo Alto Airport and will be of a size and
scale that is similar to the existing structures at the airport.
The building will not overwhelm the site and wil! use materials and
colors that are compatible and complimentary with the Baylands;
3.The design is appropriate to the function of the
project in that the building would contain a general business
service, which would require a prominent entrance and easy path of
trave! to the building for customers and clients of the tenant. The
design of the project incorporates these features. The interior
space would provide appropriate space for the functions of the
building, which include sales and administrative offices,
conference rooms and lobby areas;
4.Access to the property and circulation thereon are
safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that
pubic parking spaces for the use of visitors are provided on-site.
Visitors to the site will not have to cross the main driveway to
enter the building;
5.Natural features are appropriately preserved and
integrated with the project in that, as conditioned, the project
will improve the existing landscaping and add additional landscaped
areas a!ong Embarcadero Road adjacent to the project site. The new
landscaping will contain plant material that is compatible with the
Baylands Park;
6.The materials, textures, colors and details of
construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the
design and function in that the new finishes will be similar to
those found on the existing buildings at the site. In addition, the
existing buildings will be repaired, cleaned and improved with
finishes and materials similar to the new building. The result will
be two separate structures that are unified in their design and
materials selection. The new finishes will maintain the natural
look and textures that exist at many of the buildings at the
airport. These materials will be compatible with the adjacent and
neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions;
7.The landscape design concept for the site, as shown
by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms
and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional
environment in that as conditioned, the final selection of piant~
materia! wil! enhance the structures and provide a sense of
transition between the developed areas in the Bayiands to more
natural or undisturbed areas of the park. The landscape concept
000302 syn 0091213
depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site
in that the native vegetation to be used will enhance the natural
materials to be used on the buildings;
.8.The plant material would be suitable and adaptable
to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and
is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to
reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance;
9.The design is energy efficient and incorporates
renewable energy and sustainable building design elements
including, but not limited to solar access, certified materials,
and energy efficient equipment.
SECTION 6.Architectural Review Approval Granted
Architectural Review Approval is granted by the City Council under
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.48.100, subject to the
conditions of approval in Section 9 of this record.
SECTION 7.Site and Design Review Findings
i. The Project, as conditioned, will be constructed and
operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and
compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby
sites, in that The Project will be compatible with the existing
structure and does not detract from the natural character of the
site. The siting of this addition and other proposed improvements
would result in no negative impact(s) to neighboring properties.
2. The Project is designed in such a way as to ensure the
desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research of
educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the
same or adjacent area, in that the project will maintain
desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas, the
proposed design and size of the addition and related improvements
are generally consistent with the existing commercial structures on
Embarcadero Road, and the construction of all improvements wil! be
governed by the regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the
Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety
and a high quality of development.
3. Sound principles of environmental design and
ecological balance will be observed in construction of the project,
in that the new building and existing building remodel will
incorporate sustainable building materials and equipment to reduce
energy needs and increase the recycled content of the building. The
proposed design of the new building will be raised above the f!ood
zone elevation, thereby reducing potential for structura! damage
000302 syn 0091213
and loss in the event flooding.
4. The project is in accordance with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, in that the project proposal complies with the
applicable policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan and the
Bay!ands Master Plan.
SECTION 8.Site and Design Approval Granted Site and
Design Approval is granted by the CLty Counci! under Palo Alto
Municipa! Code Section 18.82.070, subject to the conditions of
approval in Section 9 of this record.
SECTION 9.Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
Before Submittal for Building Permit
i.i The building permit plans shall be in substantial conformance
with the plans titled ~Brandt Building, 1903 Embarcadero
Road", prepared by Bellomo Architects, dated Apri! 15, 2003,
unless otherwise modified by these conditions of approval. A
copy of this Record of Land Use Decision shall be printed on
the cover sheet of the plans submitted for building permit.
These documents are on file with the Planning Division.
1.2 The plans shall be revised to include parking !ot and driveway
signage to indicate the location of parking spaces for the
existing and proposed uses at 1903 Embarcadero Road.
Additional signage shall be included on the plans to indicate
that parking is prohibited in the drive aisles. Planning
Division and Transportation Division staff shall review the
parking, circulation, and parking signage. The Director of
Planning and Community Environment shall approve these
additions to the plans prior to issuance of the building
permit.
1.3 New building signage, parking lot signage or directiona!
signage shal! conform with the Palo Alto Airport Master Sign
Program, June 1986.
Building Division
Before Submittal for Building Permit
2.1 The plans submitted for the building permit shal! include the
000302 syn 0091213
full scope of the construction including all site development,
utility installations, architectural, structural, electrica!,
plumbing and mechanical work associated with the proposed
project.
2.2 The entire project is to be included under a single building
permit and shall not be phased under multiple permits.
2.3 Design of building components that are not included in the
plans submitted for building permit and are to be deferred
shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of
deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit
application.
2.4 All entrances and exits from the proposed addition shall be
accessible per CBC Section I133B.I.I.I
2.5 The building shall be served by a single electrical service in
accordance with National Electric Code Art. 230-2. The
!ocation of the electrical service shall require prior
approval by the Inspection Services Division and shall be
located at an exterior location or in a room or enclosure
accessible directly from the exterior.
The plans shall indicate how the building’s electrical system
is to be separated so that each tenant space is independent
and tenants have unrestricted access to the overcurrent
devices serving their areas.
2.7 The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an
allowable floor area calculation that relates the mixed
occupancies to type of construction.
2.8 All building occupants and tenants shall file an application
for Use and Occupancy and receive a "certificate of occupancy"
prior to occupying the building.
Fire Department
Before Submittal for Building Permit
3.1 The new building shall be separated from the existing building
in accordance with the California State Building Code.
Public Works
Before Submitta! for Building Permit
4.1 The existing building is located within a FEMA-designated
000302 syn 0091213
4.2
Specia! F!ood Hazard Area (SFHA). If the cost of the work on
the structure is greater than 50% of the depreciated,
appraised value of the existing structure, it will be
considered to be a substantia! improvement. When a project in
a SFHA is a substantia! improvement, the existing structure
and the new construction must be designed to conform to flood
zone requirements. If this cost is less than 50%, flood zone
requirements will not be applicable. A professional appraisal
of the project building must be presented with the Building
Permit application submittal.
The proposed structure is located in a Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA), with a designation of AE with the Base Flood
Elevation (BFE) 8 feet above sea level. As a result, the
below items need to be addressed in subsequent revisions of
the Building Permit submission:
A.The proposed structure is in a Special Flood Hazard Area
and requires openings in enc!osed areas to permit the free
entry and exit of flood waters. This includes areas such
as the craw! space and at-grade garage. There must be at
least two openings for each enc!osed area with ! sq in of
opening for each 1 sq ft of enc!osed area. These openings
must be placed no more than 12 inches above lowest adjacent
grade. Provide on the drawings the fol!owing:
4.3
4.4
a schedule showing the areas enclosed;
the area of each opening;
the number of openings required;
a detail showing the location of the vent relative
to adjacent grade;
and the location of the openings on the foundation
plan.
These should also be incorporated into the structural
drawings, since flood openings in the foundation affect the
structural engineer’s design. Guidelines for f!ood
openings can be found in FEMA Technical Bulletin 1-93,
"Openings in Foundation Walls."
Show on the structural drawings a detail of the foundation and
wal! for the garage. Show where the Base Flood Elevation
(BFE) is and show flood-resistant materials below the BFE.
All appliances, including furnaces, hot water heaters and air
conditioning pads, must be placed at or above the BFE. Show.
the locations of these appliances on the floor plan/site plan
with the associated elevation relative to mean sea level.
000302 syn 0091213
7
4.5 Show the method and type of insulation proposed for the
subfloor area. If it is to be placed be!ow the BFE, show that
these items are approved f!ood resistant materials.
4.6 Show where the base flood elevation is located on the
structura! details. Show that al! construction materials
located below the base flood elevation are flood-resistant.
Consult FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-93, "Flood-Resistant
Materials Requirements" for a listing of acceptable materials.
4.7 The following statement shall be added to the plans:
~The ’as-built’ elevation of the pad must be submitted on a
FEMA Elevation Certificate and accepted by Public Works
Engineering as meeting Special Flood Hazard Area requirements
prior to final city approval and sign-off of the Building
Permit. This certificate shall be submitted to the Public
Works Inspector."
4.8 The elevation of the top of the lowest floor must be certified
on a letter by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer and
accepted by Public Works Engineering as meeting Special F!ood
Hazard Area requirements. This certification shall occur when
the floor framing is first established at a stage of
construction when the floor still correctable with minimum
effort. Further building inspections wil! not be provided by
the Building Inspection Division until Public Works
Engineering has received and approved the certificate.
Utilities Engineering - Electrical
Before Submittal for Building Permit
5.1 The customer/contractor shall inform Utilities Engineering at
(650) 566-4551 if there is any change to the existing
distribution system in order to provide the electric service
to the proposed project. Any change that is required in order
to provide electric service shall be made at the customer’s
expense. All underground utilities must me marked prior to
excavation. Customer must schedule a field meeting with
Utilities Engineering before commencing the construction.
Customer is responsible for coordinating the relay settings
with City’s Engineering/Operations Department. City wil!
provide the detailed comments and cost estimate (if any) when
the plans are submitted to the Building Department for review
and approva!.
Utilities Marketing
Before Submittal for Building Permit
000302 syn 0091213
8
6.1 Prior to issuance of either a Building Permit or Grading
Permit, all common area landscaping shal! be approved by the
Utilities Marketing Services division of the Utilities
Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water
Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. A water budget
shall be assigned to the project and a dedicated irrigation
water meter shal! be required. Call the Landscape Plan Review
Specialist at 650.329.2549 for additional information.
SECTION i0.Term of Approval.
i. Conditiona! Use Permit. If the Conditiona! Use Permit
granted is not used within one year of the date of council
approval, it shall become null and void, pursuant to by Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.90.080(c) .
2. Site and Design. In the event actual construction of
the project is not commenced within two years of the date of
counci! approval, the approval shal! expire and be of no further
force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.82.080.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
000302 syn 0091213
Attachment C
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Steven Turner, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning &
Community
Environment
AGENDA DATE: December 18, 2002
SUBJECT:1903 Embarcadero Road [02-D-11, 02-UP-30]: Request by
Bellomo Architects on behalf of the City of Palo Alto (property"
owner), County of Santa Clara (leaseholder) and Dr. Jim Brandt
(fixed-based operator) for Site and Design Review- and a Conditional
Use Permit to allow a 1,643 square foot addition to an existing
airport building, to provide the offices for Victor Aviation (a tenant
currently located at the airport). The project includes new
landscaping features and improvements to the existing building.
Environmental Assessment: Categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section
15301. Zone District: PF(D).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission approve the
conditional use permit and recommend approval of the addition, remodel and related site
improvements and approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval (Attachment B).
City of Palo Alto Page 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Information
The project site is located at the Palo Alto Airport. The airport is located in the Palo Alto
Baylands, which has a "D" overlay zone district. The project is subject to Site and Design
review and must comply with the policies and progams of the 1979 Baylands Master
Plan (amended in 1987) and the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The airport is
owned by the City of Palo Alto and leased to Santa Clara County. The airport’s 2,440-
foot runway serves single- and twin-engine aircraft. The airport recorded nearly 2 ! 0,000
operations (takeoffs, landings, and "touch-and-go" events) in 2001.
Santa Clara County operates and maintains the airport and related facilities as described
in the existing lease a~eement, which expires in 2017. The County subleases commercial
space to businesses that provide airport-related services such as aircraft maintenance and
sales, retail, flight schools, and airplane charter companies.
Dr. Jim Brandt, representing the Airport Management Group, is one of the two fLxed-
based operators at the airport. Dr. Brandt subleases a 3.12 acres at the southwest coruer of
the airport located adjacent to Embarcadero Road and the driveway entrance to the Palo
Alto Golf Course.
Two structures are currently located on the project site. The building to be remodeled and
expanded is a 3,905 square foot commercial/retail building that provides space for the
Palo Alto Flying Club and The Airport Shoppe. This single story commercial/retail
structure was built in 1976 and is characterized by dark brown wood siding, full-leng~,h
exterior windows, wide overhangs and a shingled mansard roof that screens rooftop
equipment. Sixteen parking spaces are provided to tenants and visitors.
Proposed Project
The project is a 1,643 square foot building addition, plus exterior modifications and
repairs to improve the commercial!retail building, the existing building. The addition
would be leased to Victor Aviation, a tenant of Pat Roy, one of two fixed-based operators
at the airport. Victor Aviation currently leases approximately 10,000 square feet from Pat
Roy in two buildings to provide aircraft maintenance and sales services to the company’s
clients. Victor Aviation also leases office space in a building across the street from the
airport at ! 900 Embarcadero Road. Victor Sloan, owner of Victor Aviation, would like to
consolidate his office uses into the proposed addition.
The addition would be constructed next to the building’s south side adjacent to the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
parking lot. As the project site is located in a flood zone, the addition would be raised
approximately four feet above grade to complying with federal flood zone requirements.
The addition will actually be a separate structure for building code reasons.
The addition would provide spaces for an office, storage, reception, conference room
space and restrooms. The design of the addition recalls features of the existing building.
Wide trellises and sunscreens on the addition relate to the wide overhangs of the existing
building and new full height glass panel windows would be similar to the existing
window system.
The style of the addition will be more contemporary than the existing building, as
industrial building materials are proposed. Flood zone requirements necessitate a series
of stairways and accessible ramps to reach the finished floor of the new space. A concrete
base will elevate the building above grade. The stairs and ramps will also be concrete. An
aluminum panel system will be used on the exterior walls and parapet. The front of the
building, facing Embarcadero Road, will feature a curved full height glass wall system
with concrete return walls on either side of the windows. The main building entry will be
comprised of a frameless glass door and window system, surrounded by concrete
projections, which form the entry vestibule.
The existing building would be remodeled to more closely relate to the new addition. The
mansard roof will be removed and replaced with a perforated steel grate screen. A
suspended steel grate canopy will extend approximately 12.5 feet beyond the existing
canopy at the front. The canopy would be finished with a metal fascia that may be
suitable for placement of building signs. The existing overhangs would be clad in painted
aluminum. Windows throughout the building would be replaced and the wood siding will
be re-stained to complement the addition.
The landscape plan includes a water feature in the form of a shallow concrete pool. The
poo! would contain "stepping stones" that lead to kiosks promoting aviation. Lighting
fixtures installed in the pool will provide a soft light on the kiosks. The pool would be
surrounded by beds of drought-tolerant native grasses. Existing landscaping next to the
building and adjacent to the parking area will be maintained.
SUM_MARY OF ISSUES:
Conditional Use Permit
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.32.040 lists conditional uses for site located in
Public Facilities (PF) districts. Airports and airport related uses are allowed as conditiona!
City of Palo Alto Page 3
uses.
The lease agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County for the
operation of the airport describes the pem~tted uses at the site,
"(a) The premises shall be used only for the purpose of constructing, operating and
maintaining an airport and airport facilities. County shall not use, and shall not permit the
use of premises, or any part thereof, for any industrial or manufacturing purposes which
does not constitute the construction, operation, and maintenance of an airport and airport
facilities.
~;(b) County shall operate the premises in compliance with the federal Aviation Agency
regulations; and County shall have full power, authority and responsibility in regard to the
operation, management and maintenance of the airport as though it were the sole owner
thereof."
In 1973, Santa Clara County and F.M. Aviation Center signed a lease for the operation of
a fixed-based operation, %vhich shall include the sale of new and used aircraft, a flight
training school, an aircraft charter and air taxi service, the sale of aircraft parts, and the
repair, maintenance, and service of aircraft, the storage of aircraft, a consulting service to
other fixed-based operators, office rentals, aircraft painting and aircraft fueling, subject to
issuance of permit for such fueling by County, and other such uses considered normal in
the day-to-day business operation of a fixed-base operator."
In 1989, Airport Management Group succeeded F. M. Aviation Center. The Airport
Management Group is represented by Dr. Jim Brandt.
Although permitted airport related uses are documented in the lease agreements between
the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County, the Palo Alto Municipal Code is clear as to
the uses that are conditionally allowed in PF districts. "Airport related uses" fall within
this category, and conditional use permits are required for any use at the airport. City
records show that use permits have been issued for many airport tenants and uses.
However, there are uses where evidence of entitlement do not exist in the City’s archived
database. In other cases, tenants have received use permits that do not accurately describe
a location at the airport or a specific building where the use will be located. Additionally,
a specific location may be described, but the tenant or lessor is not clearly referenced. As
a result, there is not a clear relationship between uses, tenant, and entitlements at the
airport.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Victor Aviation, an existing airport tenant, is seeking to consolidate his office uses into
the new addition. Table 1 summarizes Victor Aviation’s uses at the airport, when they
were established and the entitlement (if available) associated with the use:
OCCU at the Palo AltoTable 1:of Victor
Aircraft maintenance/office at
1901 Embarcadero, known as
. "Engine Shop"Aircraft maintenance/office at
1901 Embarcadero, known as .
"Building B"
1979 79-UP-19 Vacated space in 2000
II
7,300 sqft.
maintenance space
2,700 sqft. office
7,000 sqft.
maintenance space
2,500 sqft. office
1986 Use permit not
available
2000 Office space at 1900 1,440 sqft. office Permitted use;
Embarcadero, offthe airport site.no entitlement
requirement
2001 Aircraft Sales Office, 1901 150 sqft. office Use permit not " To be vacated upon
Embarcadero, Suite 399A available . completion of addition.
Currently occupying this
space. Approximately 686
square feet of office space
to be vacated upon
completion of addition.
To be vacated upon
completion of addition.
Currently, Victor Aviation occupies approximately 7,000 square feet of maintenance
facility space and 2,650 square feet of office space on the airport site and 1,440 square
feet of office space across from the airport at 1900 Embarcadero Road.
Upon completion of the addition, Victor Aviation will occupy the new office space to
conduct aircraft sales operations and administration of the aircraft maintenance business.
The new office space wil! allow Victor Aviation to vacate the aircraft sales office at 1901
Embarcadero Road, Suite 399A and approximately 686 square feet of office space in
"Building B". The company will also vacate the 1,500 square feet of office space across
the street from the airport. The addition will allow Victor Aviation to use office space
more efficiently, resulting in 2,276 square feet of space to be vacated and consolidated
into the !,643 square foot new addition.
PAMC, Section 18.90.060 describes the findings that are required in order to approve the
requested use permit:
(1)The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property, or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
(2)The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Draft findings are presented to the Commission in Attachment C to this staff report.
Comprehensive Plan and Baylands Master Plan Compliance
The project is in conformance with the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan,
including Policy T-57, ’°Support the continued vitality and effectiveness of the Palo Alto
~tirport without significantly increasing its intensity or intruding into open space areas.
The airport should remain limited to a single runway and t~o fixed-based operators."
The proposed 1,643 square foot addition will result in the consolidation of 2,276 square
feet of airport office area. The addition is m~nor in terms of additional floor area added to
the site (1,643 square feet of new area for a total of 32,165 square feet of floor area on a
136,119 square foot site). The addition will be !ocated in an existing, developed area of
the airport and will not intrude into the natural open space areas of the Baylands. The
application wil! not increase the number of runways or allow an additional fixed-based
operator.
The proposed addition is not expected to significantly increase the number of operations
(takeoffs, landings, and "touch-and-go" events) at the airport, as the proposal is for
consolidation of aircraft sales operations and maintenance facility administration uses into
a smaller space at the airport.
The project is in conformance with the 1979 Baylands Master Plan (amended in 1987),
including recommendations for the airport, "(]) In general, make no changes in the
airport activities that will increase intensir2 of airport use or will signOqcantly intrude
into open space. (2) Provide a strip of planting, consistent with the existing development
and in character with the Water Qualit2 Control Plant across the road, at the airport
from its entrance east along Embarcadero Road to it’s]unction with the shoreline road "
Project Conditions Requirin~ Desia-n Chan~es
Staff recommends that the applicant to propose additional landscaping along at the airport
entrance, east along Embarcadero Road (adjacent to the existing parking facility). The
Architectural Review Board will review the proposed landscaping features and fred that
the landscaping is consistent with the policies of the Baylands Master Plan.
A sustainabilit3, requirement is also contained in the recommended Conditions of
Approval. The ARB wil! review materials, construction practices and energy use for
consistency with their sustainability standards.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Site and Desi ~ Review Findings
The required findings (PAMC 18.82.055) can be made for the project and are listed as
follows:
The project, as conditioned, will be constructed and operated in a manner that will
be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of
adjoining or nearby sites.
The project proposal will be compatible with the existing structure and does not
detract from the natural character of the site. The siting of this addition and other
proposed improvements would result in no negative impact(s) to neighboring
properties.
The project is designed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of investment, or
the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent area.
The project will maintain desirability, of investment in the same and adjacent areas,
the proposed design and size of the addition and related improvements are
genera!ly consistent with the existing commercial structures on Embarcadero
Road, and the construction of all improvements will be governed by the
regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and
other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of development.
Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed
in constT"uction of the project.
The proposed design of the addition will be raised above the flood zone elevation.
The addition and existing building remodel are conditioned to incorporate
sustainable building objectives and materials to reduce energy needs and increase
the recycled content of the building.
o The project is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal complies with the applicable policies and progams of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Baylands Master Plan referenced therein.
ENVIRONMENTAL RE¥3-EW:
The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per section 15301, which exempts the minor alteration of existing structures,
including additions to exisSng structures provided that the addition will not result in an
City of Palo Alto Page 7
increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or
2,500 square feet (in non-urban areas), whichever is less. The 1,643 square foot addition
would be less than half of the existing building at 3,905 square feet.
NEXT STEPS:
If the Planning and Transportation Commission recommends approval or approval with
additional conditions, the project application will be forwarded to the Architectural
Review Board for their review and recommendation to the City Council for final action.
COURTESY COPIES
Bellomo Architects, 102 University Ave # B Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dr. Jim Brandt, 560 Center Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Victor Slone, 1900 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
ATTACH3IENTS:
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Recommended Conditions of Approval
Attachment C: Recommended Conditional Use Findings
Attachment D: Recommended Site & Desi~ma Review Findings
Attachment E: Project Plans (Commission members only)
Prepared by: Steven Turner, Planne~
Reviewed by: Amy French, Manag~
Department!Division Head
nning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Attachment A
Palo Alto
1903 Embarcadero Road
02-D-11, 02-UP-30
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
100’
ATTAC~NT B
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Airport Building Addition and Consolidation of Uses
1903 Embarcadero Road/File No. 02-D-11, 02-UP-30
BEFORE SUBMITTAL TO TKE ARCHITECTUI/AL REVIEW BOARD (ARB)
Plannin~ Division
1.1 The applicant shall revise site plans to incorporate additional landscaping features at the
site, including a landscaped strip along Embarcadero Road within the leaseholder area.
The landscaped strip shall contain plant material that is suitable for the Baylands area.
The proposed landscaping shall be reviewed by the ARB for recommendation to the City
Council.
1.2 The applicant shallincorporate sustainable materials and construction techniques into the
project. The AR_B will review materials, energy use, solar orientation and other elements
of sustainable design for consistency with the ARB’s sustainability standards.
BEFORE SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT
Buildin~ Division
2.1 The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the full scope of the
construction including all site development, utility installations, arckitecmral, structural,
electrical, plumbing and mechanical work associated with the proposed project.
2.2 The entire project is to be included under a single building permit and shall not be phased
under multiple permits.
2.3 Design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building
permit and are to be deferred shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of
deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application.
2.4 All entrances and exits from the proposed addition shall be accessible per CBC Section
1133B.1.1.1
2.5 The building shall be served by a single electrical service in accordance with National
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Electric Code Art. 230-2. The location of the electrical service shall require prior
approval by the Inspection Services Division and shall be located at an exterior location
or in a room or enclosure accessible directly from the exterior.
2.6 The plans shall indicate how the building’s electrical system is to be separated so that
each tenant space is independent and tenants have unrestricted access to the overcurrent
devices serving their areas.
2.7 The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area
calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to type of construction.
2.8 All building occupants and tenants shall file an application for Use and Occupancy and
receive a "certificate of occupancy" prior to occupying the building.
Fire Department
3.1 The new building shall be separated from the existing building in accordance with the
California State Building Code.
Public Works
4.1 The existing building is located within a FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA). If the cost of the work on the structure is greater than 50% of the depreciated,
appraised value of the existing structure, it will be considered to be a substantial
improvement. When a project in a SFHA is a substantial improvement, the existing structure
and the new construction must be designed to conform to flood zone requirements. If this
cost is less than 50%, flood zone requirements w~l not be applicable. A professional
appraisal of the project building must be presented with the Building _Permit application
submittal.
4.2 The proposed structure is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), with a designation
of AE with the Base Flood Elevation 0~FE) 8 feet above sea level. As a result, the below
items need to be addressed in subsequent revisions of the Building Permit submission:
No The proposed structure is in a Special Flood Hazard Area and requires openings in
enclosed areas to permit the free entry, and exit of flood waters. This includes areas such
as the crawl space and at-grade garage. There must be at least two openings for each
¯ enclosed area with 1 sq in of opening for each 1 sq fl of enclosed area. These openings
must be placed no more than 12 inches above lowest adjacent grade. Provide on the
drawings the following:
schedule showing the areas enclosed;
City of Palo Alto Page 10
the area of each opening;
the number of openings required;
a detail showing the location of the vent relative to adjacent ~ade;
and the location of the openings on the foundation plan.
These should also be incorporated into the structural drawings, since flood openings in
the foundation affect the structural engineer’s design. Guidelines for flood, openings can
be found in FEMA Technical Bulletin 1-93, "Openings in Foundation Walls."
4.3 Show on the structural drawings a detail of the foundation and wall for the garage. Show
where the Base F!ood Elevation (BFE) is and show flood-resistant materials below the BFE.
4.4 All appliances, including furnaces, hot water heaters and air conditioning pads, must be
placed at or above the BFE. Show the locations of these appliances on the floor plardsite
plan with the associated elevation relative to mean sea level.
4.5 Show the method and type of insulation proposed for the subfloor area. If it is to be placed
below the BFE, show that these items are approved flood resistant materials.
4.6 Show where the base flood elevation is located on the structural details. Show that all
construction materials located below the base flood elevation are flood-resistant. Consult
FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-93, "Flood-Resistant Materials Requirements" for a listing of
acceptable materials.
4.7 The following statement shall be added to the plans:
"The ’as-built’ elevation of the pad must be submitted on a FEMA Elevation Certificate and
accepted by PuNic Works Engineering as meeting Special F!ood Hazard Area requirements
prior to final city approval and sign-off of the Building Permit. This certificate shall be
submitted to the Public Works Inspector."
4.8 The elevation of the top of the lowest floor must be certified on a letter by a licensed land
surveyor or civil engineer and accepted by Public Works Engineering as meeting Special
Flood Hazard Area requirements. This certification shall occur when the floor framing is
fn’st established at a stage of construction when the floor still correctable with minimum
effort. Further building inspections wi!l not be provided by the Building Inspection Division
until Public Works Engineering has received and approved the certificate.
Utilities EnNneerin~ - Electrical
5.1 The customer/contractor shall inform Utilities Engineering at (650) 566-4551 if there is
any change to the existing distribution system in order to provide the electric service to
the proposed project. Any change that is required in order to provide elec’wic service shall
City of Palo Alto Page 11
be made at the customer’s expense. All underground utilities must me marked prior to
excavation. Customer must schedule a field meeting with Utilities Engineering before
commencing the construction. Customer is responsible for coordinating the relay settings
w~th City’s Engineerin~Operations Department. City will provide the detailed comments
and cost estimate (if any) when the plans are submitted to the Building Department for
review and approval.
Utilities Marketin~
6.1 Prior to issuance of either a Building Permit or Grading Permit, all common area
landscaping shall be approved by the Utilities Marketing Services division of the Utilities
Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape IKater Efficiency Standards
of the City of Palo Alto. A water budget shall be assigned to the project and a dedicated
irrigation water meter shall be required. Call the Landscape Plan Review Specialist at
650.329.2549 for additional information.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
ATTACHMENT C
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
Airport Building Addition and Consolidation of Uses
1903 Embarcadero Road/File No. 02-D- 11, 02-UP-30
The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience, in that the addition to the existing structure
will allow an existing use to consolidate administrative and aircraft sales office space
currently located throughout the airport complex. Consolidation of existing space is
not expected to significantly increase the operations at the airport. The addition will be
located in a developed area at the airport and will not encroach into the open space
areas of the Baylands. The addition and remodel of the existing building will bring
needed improvements to an existing airport building, which has not been modified
since it was constructed in 1976.
o The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Pa!o
Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title, in that the proposed project, as
conditioned, will comply with !979 Baylands Master Plan (amended in 1987),
including recommendations for the airport, "(l) !n general, make no changes in the
airport activities that will increase intensity of airport use or will significantly intrude
into open space. (2) Provide a strip of planting, consistent with the existing
development and in character with the Water Quality Control Plant across the road,
at the airport from its entrance east along Embarcadero Road to it’s junction with the
shoreline road " The project will also comply with the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, Policy T-57, "Support the continued vitality and effectiveness of
the Palo Alto Airport without significantly increasing its intensity or intruding into
open space areas. The airport should remain limited to a single runway and two fxed-
based operators." The applicant has not requested to add an additional runway and
will not add additional fixed-based operators.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Attachment E
ATTACHMENT D
RECOMtV~NDED SITE & DESIGN FINDINGS
Airport Building Addition and Consolidation of Uses
1903 Embarcadero Road/File No. 02-D-11, 02-UP-30
The required findings (PAMC 18.82.055) can be made for the project and are listed as
follows:
The project, as conditioned, will be constructed and operated in a manner that will
be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of
adjoining or nearby sites.
The project proposal will be compatible with the existing structure and does not
detract from the natural character of the site. The siting of this addition and other
proposed improvements would result in no negative impact(s) to neighboring
properties.
The project is designed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of investment, or
the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent area.
The project will maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas,
the proposed design and size of the addition and related improvements are
generally consistent with the existing commercial structures on Embarcadero
Road, and the construction of all improvements will be governed by the
reg-ulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and
other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of development.
o Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance wil! be observed
in construction of the project.
The proposed design of the addition will be raised above the flood zone elevation.
The addition and existing building remodel are conditioned to incorporate
sustainable building objectives and materials to reduce energy needs and increase
the recycled content of the building.
The project is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal complies with the applicable policies and programs of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Baylands Master Plan.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Attachment D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
"~1
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
December 18, 2002
Verbatim Minutes
EXCERPT
1903 Embarcadero Road [02-D-11, 02-UP-301I: Request by Bellomo Architects
on behalf of the City of Palo Alto (property owner), County of Santa Clara
(leaseholder) and Dr. Jim Brandt (fixed-based operator) for consideration of Site and
Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 1,643
square foot addition to an existing airport building, which will contain the offices of
Victor Aviation (a tenant currently located at the airport), new landscaping features
and improvement to the existing building. Environmental Assessment: Categorically
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section
15301. Zone District: PF(D).
Mr. Steven Turner. Planner: Thank you Chair Bialson. The project before you today is a
site and design application for a 1,643 square foot addition at the airport. Part of this
application also involves a conditional use permit to allow an airport related use, more
specifically a general business office to occupy the space. The addition is to allow Victor
Aviation who is an existing tenant at the airport to consolidate his office space into the
proposed addition. Some of the characteristics of the site are that the site is located
within a Pubic Facility District, PF zone, with the site and design overlay district. The
site is also within the Baylands area and is within a flood zone. The City of Palo Alto is
the property owner. The project is leased to Santa Clara County and that lease expires in
2017. There are two fixed-base operators at the site and they lease portions of the site
from Santa Clara County. The project is located on the site leased to Airport
Management Group, which is represented by Dr. Jim Brandt. The existing leaseholder
area is about 3.12 acres. On that site there is a single story building of about 3,900 square
feet with 16 parking spaces on the site. It was constructed in 1976 and has a mansard
shingle roof, wood siding, wide eaves that provide sun and rain protection. Victor
Aviation is looking to do the addition on the site.
The proposed project is about a 1,600 square foot addition. The addition would be in an
existing landscaped area of the site. The new addition would be required to be raised out
of the flood zone. The maximum height of the building is proposed to be 18 feet. The
Staff Report discusses a proposal for a new building with materials of concrete base,
expansive window system, aluminum siding with metal overhangs. The existing building
is also looking to be remodeled with similar materials. There would also be an addition
of an open trellis, an overhang feature. There will be improvements and repairs to the
existing overhangs and there will be a new window system used throughout.
The applicant has revised the proposal since the Staff Report was wxitten and has opted
towards a wood siding material instead of the aluminum material that is mentioned in the
Staff Report. The project plans show a wood sided material.
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
"~1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Another aspect tO the project is a landscaped water feature out in front of the addition.
is intended to be an aviation theme park where there would be kiosks near this water
feature that would give lessons perhaps on the history of the Palo Alto Airport as a
possibility.
It
The issues that are involved with tt~e project are that the project does require a
conditional use permit; airport related uses are defined as a conditiona! use within this
zone district. The Staff Report describes the history of Victor Aviation at the site so you
can see how Victor Aviation has used the airport buildings in the past. The addition
allows for a consolidation of uses on the site of approximately 2,276 square feet of floor
area that will be vacated in and around the airport and placed into the new addition.
There is compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan and the Baylands Master
Plan. The site and design findings and conditional use permit findings are located in the
Staff Report. If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the project
the project will go to the Architectural Review Board for further design refinements.
That concludes the Staff Report and the applicant is here to make a presentation.
Chair Bialson: Great. Could the applicant present now and you have ten minutes.
Ms. Finche Wijatno. Bellomo Architects: Good evening Commissioners. First I would
like to thank our planners for helping us put this project through and getting it heard
today. Steven Turner especially for putting together this Staff Report.
This project, as Steven mentioned, is for airport fixed-base operator Dr. Jim Brandt who
is not here right now and the addition is for the tenant Victor Sloan of Victor Aviation,
Inc. This is an application for site and design review and a conditional use permit for a
1.643 square foot addition to an existing airport building.
You can see from the site plan the leasehold lot size is about 3.12 acres and right now
there are two buildings on this site. One is the hanger, which is right here and it is about
26,000 square feet. Over here is an existing 3,905 square foot single story airport shop
and flight school. The scope of the project today includes minimal remodeling of the
existing building, which is the 3,900 square foot building and the addition of the 1,643
square foot office space. We are also proposing new landscape features on the site. All
this is to accommodate the long-term tenant of Palo Alto Airport who is Victor Aviation,
Inc. The project addition responds to the consolidation of Victor Aviation’s airport
related uses.
Here is a building site plan. Just to orient you on this drawing north is this way and to the
right here is Embarcadero Road and at the bottom here is Embarcadero Way that leads
you to the golf course out here off the screen. This is the existing building, the 3,905
square foot single story building, that is to be remodeled. We are trying to keep the
remodeling to a minimum so only the existing exterior of the wood siding will be
refinished and the existing mansard roof on the existing building will be removed and
replaced with a metal screen that goes around the perimeter of the building. Also there
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
will be a minor interior improvement to keep the building up to ADA standards. To the
south of the existing building is the new addition, the 1,600 square foot office space, that
will be put in there.
We are trying to keep the site disturbances by keeping the new addition to a minimum so
we are trying to keep the site as intact as possible. The parking adjacent to the building
will be kept unchanged except for a couple of spaces that will be converted to
handicapped accessible parking. The landscape at the edge of the site will be maintained.
We are in agreement with the Staff recommendation that we will be looking into
enhancing the landscaping at the edge of the site. The existing plane hold-downs will
remain unchanged and we will be adding a new landscape feature in the front of the
addition.
Here is a closer look at the floor plans. The new addition, which is right here, will
consist of three new office spaces, a conference room, bathroom, lobby area, reception
and storage space. The new landscape area in the front of the building will be a shallow
concrete pond that will have concrete steps that lead to the kiosk that will feature
information on the history of the aviation in Palo Alto Airport. It will be surrounded by
California Bayland grasses.
Here is a picture of the existing mansard roof and the six-foot overhand and the wood
siding. On the right is a computer rendering of the new addition that wilt be put into the
south side of the existing building. The new- addition will be raised four feet above grade
per flood zone requirements. There will also be a six-inch separation between the new
building and our old building per building code requirements. We are aware of the
concerns that anyone may have regarding the visual impact of this new building on the
site. So we are trying to use similar materials with the surrounding buildings such as
wood siding, concrete and glass and basically be respectful of general feel and the
neutrality of the Baylands. We will also incorporate any sustainable design features to
the building. Give that the building will be raised four feet above ground we will try to
keep the new addition’s scale compatible with the scale of the existing buildings on site.
So what we tried to do is architecturally break up the volumes of the building, terrace the
roofline around the building and also full-length glazing that will also echo the style of
the existing building. The new landscape improvements that include the water feature in
the front edge of the new addition will definitely soften the edge between the new
building and the site.
As I mentioned before this new addition will enable Victor Aviation, Inc., who has been a
long-term tenant in Palo Alto Airport, to consolidate his office spaces in this one new
addition. I will let Victor speak to that now.
Mr. Victor Sloan. Victor Aviation. Inc.. Pato Alto Airport: Hi, I am Victor Stoan,
President of Victor Aviation and Victor Sloan Enterprises who is a Northern California
exclusive distributor for the Piper Aircraft Company which is located in Florida. Our
company has been in business since 1977. We actually started out in the back of a pickup
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
truck, myself and a few friends at the airport back in 1977 and have grown very carefully
and very slowly for some 25 years getting to the point where we are today.
Victor Aviation, for those of you not familiar with us, we are the number one world’s
rated leader in piston engine rebuilding. We ship engines all over the world. Early in the
year 2000 the Piper Aircraft factory came to me and asked me to represent them as a
factory service sales distributor for Northern California. We used to be affiliated as a
Piper service center back in 1977 and 1979. They have come back and asked us to re-
represent them. Since that time, since January 2000, we have sold considerable numbers
of aircraft that are spread out throughout Northern California. We actually are the
distributor we sell out of Palo Alto. Some of the customers stay based at Palo Alto and
the others are spread out from Monterey to Reno to Northern Nevada to Northern
California.
Sales tax revenues for our company are very significant for the City of Palo Alto. One
percent of the sales of the aircraft go to the City of Palo Alto to the benefit of you. The
condition that we are in right now, the Piper Aircraft factory requires that we have a
suitable and convenient and comfortable place to meet and greet our customers at the
airport and handle and represent the Piper Aircraft factory. Right now our company is in
a very dysfunctional position. Our company is spread out in the three different locations.
I ,,,,ill show you on the map here how we are dysfunctional right now. In early 2000 the
Piper Aircraft factory said you have no facilities in Palo Alto Airport that are suitable to
even sit down and talk to a customer about the purchase of a new airplane. They said,
Victor we want you to represent us but you have to have a facility with at least a
conference room, at least heating and air conditioning and bathrooms, and a place to put
on a PowerPoint presentation to talk to our customers that want to purchase our planes
that range from $200,000 to $1.9 million. As a result of that we were forced to lease the
facility across the street from the airport. That is identified in the yellow zone, the 1,440
square feet. We then have other operations on the airport that are located in the green and
the yellow areas. We are operating our service facility out of Building B where we have
small and inadequate offices in that building with no restrooms in it, no air conditioning
and a very primitive area to show millionaire customers these airplanes. In the green area
we have a small office which is approximately 150 square feet that actually acts as our
airport location sales office which is completely inadequate to be able to present and talk
to our clients. When you add up the square footage between those three areas, what we
are trying to do is actually consolidating our company into a smaller area by moving into
the 1,600 square feet that Dr. Brandt is willing to build for us on the airport so we can
become consolidated into one location to suit the requirements of the corporate America
from the Piper Company says that we have to have. Unfortunately, for this for some
reason, we will be forced to have to move our piper sales organization to central
California.
Chair Bialson: Alright. Can you finish up and then we have a question for you.
Mr. Sloan: Okay. I’ll try to keep this as brief as possible. Basically this is the
consolidation of our company. We are going to try to stay in Palo Alto with our sales
Page 4
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
organization because the dysfunctions right now being spread out off the airport, on the
airport, and the inadequate facilities that are not comfortable to meet with our clients and
we are going to be forced to go somewhere else. We’ve been here since ’77, we want to
stay here. My son is right behind me, he wanted to be here tonight but could not make it
and we are hoping to stay here for another 25 years and continue to serve and support the
people of Palo Alto and the distributor areas of Northern California.
Chair Bialson: Commissioner Burr has a question for you.
Commissioner Burt: Yes, I have to admit I had no idea we had a regional aircraft retail
site at the airport. We’ve talked a great deal in the City about the importance of retaining
our automotive dealership and I didn’t know we had an aircraft dealership. Please feel
free to decline to answer anything that you view as confidential information but what
sort of volume of aircraft are sold there, if I might ask?
Mr. Stoan: In dollars?
Commissioner Burt: Well, whatever you are comfortable with.
Mr. Sloan: Okay. I’d have to refer to our accounting for this but I can give you an
approximate range. Since we started the dealership back in January 2000, we have
approximately 40 million dollars in sales of which 1% will go to the City of Palo Alto or
has been going to them.
Commissioner Burt: And do you anticipate that this facility will further enhance your
ability to do your business and sell your aircraft?
Mr. Sloan: Not only will it enhance the ability to do that but its going to allow us to stay
here in the city of Palo Alto. Your point is very well taken, you didn’t even know that we
were here, most people don’t know we are here. We are hidden upstairs in a suite across
the street from the airport and you wouldn’t know that we have a Piper sales center
whatsoever so yes we do anticipate an enhancement of our company as a result of having
a more prominent location where we could become visual to our customers here and
again, remember, these airplanes are distributed throughout Northern California. This
isn’t just Palo Alto.
Commissioner Burt: One final question and it may be more appropriate for your architect
but my sense from looking at the design of the building is that it seem to have a deliberate
streamline. We have our train station which has a streamline moderan design and kind of
an aerodynamic feel to it. Is that a deliberate effort or is that just my sense of the
building?
Mr. Sloan: I am going to refer to Finche on that point.
Ms. Wiiatno: I think that it was just your sense. What our main concern to keep the
building as low profiled as possible and to blend in to the vernacular of the existing
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
building so as not to stand out too much since its in the airport site that has been there for
a long time.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair Burt: One more question from the Commission.
Commissioner Cassel: You are going to add a small amount of square footage to the site.
What happens to the buildings that you are now occupying not the ones across the street
but the ones that are onsite? What are you going to do with those?
Mr. Sloan: Our footage over at 1900 Embarcadero we are going to be vacating that
completely from across the street.
Commissioner Cassel: I am not worried about across the street. On the site that you are
on now your offices are scattered on the site. Are those being demolished? Are they
being used in some other way?
Mr. Sloan: Those are facilities that we have a lease on with our company. We are going
to be moving our office staff that is in the areas occupying those buildings into this new
building. Basically it is just a movement of our people from one part of the airport into
the new area.
Commissioner Cassel: In the old area, where you move out, what are you doing there?
Mr. Sloan: Building B is an aircraft service facility where we do aircraft repair.
Commissioner Cassel: They will just continue to do that and just expand in the space.
Mr. Sloan: That is correct.
Commissioner Cassel: That is what I wanted to "know. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Any other Commissioners with questions? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question for Staff. I don’t have any for the applicant.
Chair Bialson: These are for the applicant. No further questions of you right now.
Thank you.
Mr. Sloan: Okay. Thank you very much.
Chair Bialson: I have no other speaker request cards. Oh, I do have so we will open the
public hearing and cal! Pat Roy.
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Pat Roy. 1901 Embarcadero Road. Palo Alto: Good evening. I own Roy Air
Enterprises. I am the other FBO site. I own the other FBO site at Palo Alto. The
dysfunctional buildings that Mr. Sloan describes to you are on my site and I lease them to
him. He has indicated to you that if you don’t approve his plans he will move. He just
signed a five-year lease so he won’t be moving very soon I don’t think.
As far as the Staff report is concerned there is just a couple of things I would like to bring
to your attention. First of all the Staff Report does not address parking in any way at all.
Whether you are going to consolidate offices and use them possibly for sales where
people will be visiting and a relocation of parking spaces from what he is using now to
the new location there is very little parking there. In the last several months since we
became aware of the potential plans for this we have been monitoring it and the parking
lot except in rainy and inclement weather, which we are in now is generally full and in
some cases double-parked. So I would like the Staff to address where this relocation of
parking places is going to be. On the building that the new building is going to be
attached to generally north where the diagonal red line is is the commencement of my
property. There is parking there that has been an ongoing problem with tenants of the
other FBO, Mr. Brandt’s FBO, and the golf course for many, many years. They have
exacerbated to the point where in the last four months we have started to tow people
away. The parking lot is space that I pay for, that I maintain, and that I keep and I post. I
am concerned that with a larger building there we are going to have the Embarcadero
frontage lot full and they are going to intrude on mine making my problem even worse.
The second thing that the Staff does not address is I would like you to be aware that there
is a special sign ordinance for Palo Alto Airport. It in some way incorporates some of the
provisions of the master signage ordinance for this city but the airport has a very specific,
a very distinct and a very much-enforced signage. So in the overall plans I think where
signage to direct potential customers to Mr. Sloan’s operations should be addressed in the
overal! plan as well.
My third concern goes back to parking. What is labeled there as Embarcadero Way,
which is the entrance way from Embarcadero Road down in front, what we would call the
front would generally be the west side of the existing office building to be expanded and
then doglegs around to the tower. At that point it is divided. The road is not very wide
and it is divided by a long row of trees and the curbs are in very, very bad shape. People
now, because of the constricted parking, are parking along the right hand side of the curb
on the northbound side. As a result the maintenance trucks for the Santa Clara County
Water District when they maintain the dykes can’t get through without breaking up the
curb. The fueling trucks that deliver bulk fuel to the two fuel dealers have difficulties
and are actually breaking out or at least contributing to the demolition of those curbs. So
I would like those items to be considered when you are making your decision.
Chair Bialson: There is a question for you, just a second, please. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Actually I was going to ask Staff the question about the parking
as well. How- extensive would you say that the parking shortage is?
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Roy: Our operation is primarily seasonal. People fly and are interested in seeing
airplanes and visiting the airport when the weather is good. Generally between
November about now and the early part of February people are coming out and
maintaining and checking their aircraft because the weather is generally not really
conducive to a lot of recreational flying. When the first weather breaks in March or April
on our site we are often double parked behind each other. Flight schools operate on
about a 55-minute scale so you have a flight instructor and you have a student who has to
fly to find a place to park. That rotates about ever), hour. They go from first light in the
morning until usually mid to late afternoon depending on what weather conditions are.
People just learning to fly, CFIs, are concerned about teaching them in the late afternoons
when the heavy winds come up. That is a skill you learn a little later on in the whole
process. It is mostly early morning to mid to late afternoon depending on weather
conditions.
Commissioner Holman: One other quick question if I could. You said also that some of
the parking that goes over there is from the golf course.
Ms. Roy: Yes.
Commissioner Holman: So everything of course happens in good weather out there.
How can you ascertain, I am not trying to challenge you in this I would just like to know,
how can it be determined that it is overflow from the golf course that you are getting?
Ms. Roy: Well when you see the man drive in open his trunk and take out his golf cart
and his shoes and walk across we are pretty sure that is where he is going.
Commissioner Holman: That is a clear signal, I’d say.
Commissioner Burt: So he is not flying to Napa to play?
Ms. Roy: Generally, an aircraft that is based on the field is permitted to park either in his
hanger when he is taking his aircraft out or on his tie down space. So people that are
flying will generally bring their car in and leave it in the parking place for the aircraft.
What we are getting is visitors, people who are coming for ground school, who are
coming to visit other businesses. My first building, which is 1901 A, is about 27,000
square feet. So it has another airplane dealer it has a flight school, it has two smaller
aviation related business, another large hanger with a maintenance facility there and a
small lunch caf~ kind of arrangement as well as a couple of other small businesses.
Commissioner Burr: I presume since you have your business there you have been a
student of the land utilization there. Other than addressing the issue of the City possibly
providing additional parking spaces for the golfers so that they don’t intrude on the
airport parking are there any locations in this immediate vicinity that could be better
utilized to create any additional parking spaces, in your mind?
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Roy: Not really because along the westerly line of our site which is along what we
call the access road back to the tower and to the fuel farm and is really the road barrier
between the airport and the golf course there are three more parking lots that I maintain
and rent. We have encouraged, over the years, the people that are there at Mr. Sloan’s
operations, people who are coming to visit people at those businesses to use that parking
along that side. In other words we are trying to move people into parking areas that are
perhaps remote by visibility but are closer to where they are really going. Signage out
there is very restrictive and as a result it is hard sometimes to direct people to go beyond
what they see as 1901 and that particular parking tot. With Dr. Brandt’s building what
would be the roughly northeast end of it being taken up by a flying club there they are
having the same turnover of CFIs and students coming in. Again, the parking for that
building is clear out on Embarcadero but people as you know are going to park where
they can find it to be the least steps to the door. I just want to see that hopefully not get
worse than what we already have to deal with. I don’t think that towing is the right way
to encourage people to come back.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. I see no other speaker cards so I will close the public hearing
portion of this and go back to the Commission. Is there another card? Please step up Mr.
Lenox.
Mr. Lenox: Madam Chair, just a couple of items that I noticed here. I am certainly no
expert but on page two of the Staff Report it says it is a building addition. On page three
is says it is actually a separate structure and on page seven it says you don’t need a
CEQA report because it is a minor alteration of an existing structure. That is beyond my
level of competence but it seems like an obvious contradiction to a layperson, I am sure
Staff can handle it.
Secondly I was going to talk about the loss of parking which is a concern. I think there
are several spots that are going to be lost with the addition. I don’t know how that can be
addressed but I would like to see it addressed because it is as has been mentioned a fairly’
critical item out there.
Is it possible to get some of the earlier overlays there? One thing that was mentioned in
here was some kiosks, which I think is great. It says it leads to kiosks promoting aviation
on page three and I would just like some assurance from Mr. Sloan that some of that will
be non-commercial. Victor? Or is it al! going to be Victor Sloan Aviation related
promotion of aviation? The airport association would love to have a spot on the kiosk.
Hearing nothing?
Chair Bialson: There is no response required at this point but you can go on.
Mr. Lenox: I was looking for another overlay there. Victor is a great salesperson and I
admire him for that. He has done some engine work for me and he has done good engine
work for me. As I say he is a salesperson and so when he did mention all that one
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
t4
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
percent of sales tax, of course that is only for stuff sold in the County in Santa Clara.
assume that a lot of your sales are out of county and out of state including Nevada,
correct? So we wouldn’t get sales tax there. Just for clarification purposes.
The other thing on another slide I believe we talked about space. All this space is going
to revert back to the operator of the airport in 2017. So whether it is the City or the
County I presume that this is a 15-year project, is that correct in terms of lease? Just a
question. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: We appreciate your bringing those questions to our attention. I have
another card from Jim Brandt.
Dr. Jim Brandt. Palo Alto: Hi, I am the owner of the Airport Management Group at the
airport. I have been a Pa!o Alto resident since 1957.
My interest, I bought the Airport Management Group and this leasehold in 1989. My
charge from the County was to provide the infrastructure for which the airport can allow
the businesses to function at the airport. I had no intention of doing any additions out
there whatsoever. Victor Sloan came to me about six months ago and said that he was
losing his lease and that he needed to have a presence at the airport. He currently had an
office across the street. Believe me the last think I wanted to do was put an addition on
the airport. We do, as the last gentleman said, we have a lease that runs only for another
14 years or so, so this is not a cost effective thing. My feeling is that it would be a
tremendous loss for Palo Alto Airport to lose Victor Aviation. He is the largest employer
at the airport and he provides a very valuable function for the airport. I think we need to
keep him. The airport is valuable for the City of Palo Alto.
Now, Ms. Roy has addressed the fact of parking. We have no parking problem on our
FBO. She may have some on hers. My FBO is about three acres hers is about seven or
seven and one-half. I think it probably doesn’t have sufficient parking for the space and
the people that she has there. We have absolutely no problem at our FBO. We don’t
have any problem with people parking there from the golf course. I have never seen
anybody walk across the street from the golf course parking in either her tot or in our lot.
I just don’t think that is an issue. This building is small, it is only to provide space for
three people to work in, Victor and his associate and one secretary. So parking doesn’t
seem to me to be a significant problem. I just want to reemphasize that this isn’t a project
that I was looking for, that I wanted to get into, but I feel a responsibility both to the
County and to the City, that is who my lease is with, to provide these facilities to keep the
airport viable. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. I think I am now able to close the public hearing
portion. I have no other cards. Staff?.
Mr. Turner: Chairperson Bialson, I just wanted to go ahead and respond to some of the
questions that were brought up during the presentation. Currently there are 16 parking
spaces onsite. The addition would require approximately six additional spaces to be
Page 10
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
t8
!9
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
added on. Staff feels confident that those six additional spaces could be accommodated
on the site. Through the Architectural Review process we would ensure that those space
are placed accordingly. Over in the golf course there are approximately 250 parking
spaces there already. Staff would be willing, as a condition of approval, look to install or
require the installation of no parking signage or signage that might indicate that this is
parking for the airport uses only and not for golf course use. That is something that Staff
can consider.
Mr. Emslie: I also wanted to address the comment from the speaker about how the sales
tax is calculated. This is considered a point of sale so no matter where the plane ends up
this is where the sales tax would accrue. Sales tax is divided up in this state by point of
sale so we would get that one percent attributed to the City of Palo Alto.
Chair Bialson: Thank you.
Mr. Turner: The third item was about the addition versus a separate building. The
building code requirements in terms of flood zone I think is requiring officially a separate
building. Otherwise if they connected the building physically the whole existing building
would also have to be raised out of the flood zone. So technically it is separate building.
Ms. Furth: We believe that the categorical exemption is appropriate under the California
Environmental Quality Act. That is that the CEQA determinations that Staff is
recommending is correct.
Chair Bialson: Okay. Pat, you have a question?
Commissioner Burt: Yes. I wanted to see if Staff might be willing to approach this other
issue not as a condition of approval but as something that was raised by the public. If
Staff would in addition to this signage possibility if Staff would evaluate maybe
investigate to some degree and evaluate is there presently intrusion from the golf course
and if so at a future time make some recommendations on how- that might be addressed.
Mr. Turner: As part of the use permit we could put a review in there for how the parking
is being used between the two and on the airport site as well.
Chair Bialson: The entire parking situation out there would be appreciated. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Thank you for raising the parking issues. That satisfies most of
my questions. On the overall site plan it shows the parking lot to the west, I think it is the
west, this shared parking. Is that the golf course parking lot that you are talking about?
Mr. Turner: That is the golf course parking. Staff hasn’t been able to find any proof of
an existing shared parking agreement between the airport and the golf course. One may
exist but Staff hasn’t been able to find evidence of that.
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Packer: My other question was the actual document that would be the
conditional use permit, the Attachment B had conditions of approval but it didn’t really
define the uses that are shown in the table in the Staff Report. I would hope that the
conditional use permit has a section that defines the actual uses that we are conditioning.
So I am assuming that if we go ahead and make a motion to approve this that we would
incorporate the list of uses that are on page five in that table one in the conditional use
permit. Is that the appropriate way to draft the permit itself?.
Mr. Turner: That is correct. I believe a separate letter in the form of an actual permit is
sent to the applicant that describes the aspects of the conditional use permit. So the use
categories that might apply to this are general business office. There is an airport related
kind of general use category that might be applied there as well, however, there is not a
specific use category that addresses airplane sales. We have an automotive service
category to address automobile sales but nothing specifically to address airplane sales or
aircraft sales. The use categories for retail services don’t quite fit the definition of a large
aircraft or vehicle. So having a use category like general business office I think is an
appropriate use category. We could find the appropriate categories and put them in the
use permit.
Chair Bialson: Wynne.
Ms. Furth: In this case the Planning and Transportation Commission on the conditional
use permit is making a recommendation to the City Council because it is combined with a
site and design review. So if you should recommend that this go forward, when it goes to
the City Counci! it will have a complete proposed conditional use permit attached, the
entire document which will specie the uses as well as the conditions of approval and the
findings on which it is based.
Chair Bialson: Would we need to include that in the motion?
Ms. Furth: No, Staff wilt do that.
Chair Bialson: Okay, thank you. Go ahead.
Commissioner Holman: In the plans dotted throughout there are different references to
aviation theme park, aviation plaza and aviation kiosk. I just want to confirm with Staff
that that also would have to go through a design review as well as the sign that is not
included as a part of this project.
Mr. Turner: That is right. The aviation theme park or plaza would be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Board during the site and design review process. Signage is not a
part of this application. There is a master sign program that exists on the site and all
signage would have to comply with that master sign program. Any additional or new
signage that is proposed at this point would have to come in as a separate application and
that would also be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board.
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
!5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4!
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Holman: Then additionally I appreciate the efforts and the comments by
the architect saying that they had made efforts to be compatible with the other buildings
and respectful of the general feel of the Baylands. The site and design review findings
especially number three refer to sound principles of environmental design and ecological
balance wilt be observed in the construction of the project. How- I interpret this is a little
bit different than how Staff has interpreted it. Staff interpret number one and number
three more in terms of the construction process and the sustainability of the building.
How I interpret it is that it is requiring any project to be compatible with the existing
natural environment in addition to the other built environment because that is the setting.
So where that leads me is a couple of comments about the building. I think it is more
important especially as you get closer to the Baylands entrance that most of the buildings
out there have large overhangs. So if there is a lot of glass the impact and glare of that in
a natural environment, the reflectivity of that in a natural environment is minimized. So
that would be something that I would think would be appropriate for this design. The
other thing would be that the color of the building, I know this is a printout so it is not
exact, but when the palette is being determined for the building that that also be a color
that is more low-key and a little more in keeping with the environment of the Baylands
and that area. Those would be my comments. Actually there is one other one. The
lighting. I remember some time ago when the lighting was going to be added for security
purposes in the airport around along where Embarcadero curves and goes out to the duck
pond for instance there was a !ot of concern about lighting and again how that affects that
environment and gives the impression that it is still a natural environment and not an
urban environment. I would say that that would be appropriate for this building as well.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Any other comments by Commissioners? Can I have a
motion, please? Phyllis.
MOTION
Commissioner Cassel: I will move that the Planning and Transportation Commission
approve the conditional use permit and recommend the approval of the addition, the
remodel and limited site improvements and approval of the conditional use permit subject
to the attached conditions of approval. I would like to add to that that it witl meet the
master sign program that Karen is talking about. I presume you will add non-reflective
glass and have a low-key color.
Commissioner Holman: Thank you for including that. Actually it would be referencing
overhang so that the windows wouldn’t have such reflectivity.
Commissioner Cassel: I wasn’t trying to get that specific in the design. The
Architectural Review Board will review those design details. Although when it comes to
us, the site and design review, we do get to make comments on that.
Chair Bialson: So what is the exact language you have with regard to the specific
recommendations?
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Cassel: I wrote down, "will meet the master sign pro~am," which has
been confirmed. I said use non-reflective glass.
Ms. Furth: You want the design to be carried out so it is reduced reflection?
Commissioner Cassel: Reduce the reflection, how is that?
Chair Bialson: That is better.
Ms. Furth: Substantially reduce reflection.
Commissioner Cassel: I had said low-key color but maybe there is a better way of
wording that. Color will blend into the environment. Of course the parking that you
have mentioned here will be included.
Chair Bialson: Is that part of your motion or are you leaving that to Staff to follow up?
Commissioner Cassel: The Staff recommendation included those parking spaces I
believe.
Ms. Furth: That is right. The Staff recommendation includes parking as required by the
code.
Chair Bialson: Right. Okay. Do I have a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Packer: I’ll second.
Chair Bialson: Would the speaker care to speak to the motion?
Commissioner Cassel: Just a few words. This is a small building. They are not
attempting to get any greater height out of it. They are including some additional
landscaping in order to provide some protection so the area won’t be seen. So I believe
that it meets our requirements. I am always sad to see any building added out there but I
think this will fall into the general category of low-key and not overxhelming in the area.
Chair Bialson: Did you have a comment, Steve?
Mr. Emslie: Just to clarify. The motion includes both the recommendation on the use
permit and the site and design review, moving them forward to the Architectural Review
Board.
Commissioner Casset: Yes.
Chair Bialson: Would the seconder care to speak to it?
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Commissioner Packer: I don’t really have much more to add.
Chair Bialson: Do we have any comments or should we vote? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Steven had mentioned the prospect of putting signage
differentiating the parking uses. Does that need to be part of the motion?
Mr. Emslie: That is included as well the one-year or the regular review of any parking
overlap in the use permit conditions.
Commissioner Burt: Great. That is your understanding, Phyllis? Great. I will support
the motion.
Chair Bialson: Yes.
Commissioner Holman: Just one clarification of something that Mr. Turner and I had a
conversation about earlier. If parking is going to be added and that is addressed that
parking would not be appropriate to be added along the curb. I just want to make sure
that that is in the record and Staff can confirm that.
Mr. Turner: That will be in the record.
MOTION PASSED
Chair Bialson: Let’s have a vote on the motion. Al! those in favor say aye. (ayes) All
those opposed say nay. That is five Commissioners voting with Commissioner Bellomo
abstaining due to a conflict and Commissioner Griffin not in attendance.
Page 15
Page 16
Attachment E
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Agenda Date:January 16, 2003
To:Architectural Review Board
From:
Subject:
Steven Turner, Planner Department: Planning and
CommuniU, Environment
1903 Embarcadero Road [02-D-11, 02-UP-30]: Request by Be!lomo
Architects on behalf of the City of Palo Alto (property owner), County of
Santa Clara (leaseholder) and Dr. Jim Brandt (fixed-based operator) for
Site and Design review of the construction of a 1,643 square foot building,
adjacent to an existing airport building, which will contain the offices of
Victor Aviation (a tenant currently located at the airport), new landscaping
features and improvements to the existing building Zone District: PF(D).
Environmental Assessment: Categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the ARB recommend approval to the City Council for the proposed
project, based upon the fmdings in Attachment A and subject to the suggested Conditions of
Approval set forth in Attachment B.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
On December ! 8, 2002, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval of
the project and the conditional use permit (motion by Commissioner Cassell, second by
Comissioner Packer, 4-0-2-1).The Commission forwarded the project to the ARB for review of
the site plan and elevations for a final recommendation to the Ci~ Council.
The Planning and Transportation Commission’s comments related to the design of the project are
summarized as follows:
Non-reflective glass should be incorporated into the window system.
Building colors and materials should be compatible with the Baylands environment.
1903 Embarcaero Road Page 1
Additional parking spaces required for the project should be located on the fixed-based
operator’s site. Parking should be discouraged along the curbs adjacent to the addition the
Directional signage indicating the parking areas for each use or groups of uses should be
installed in appropriate locations.
Any proposed signage should comply with the ! 986 Airport Master Sign Program.
The conditional use permit will be reviewed by the City Council. Draft conditions for the use
permit will include the requirement.to establish a regularly scheduled review of the parking
conditions at the airport and the adjacent municipal golf course.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report for the project, dated December 18,
2002, provides a complete description of the existing site conditions, the proposed project,
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Baylands Master Plan, and the significant issues
relating to the use and the design of the building. Please refer to this staff report the discussion on
these topics. The staff report is in Attachment D.
Proiect Revisions
The applicant has made minor revisions to the project since the December 18, 2002 Planning and
Transportation Commission staff report.
The aluminum siding has been changed to a natural wood siding to be more compatible with the
Baylands environment.
The parking plan indicates that there are 22 standard parking spaces and one accessible parking
spaces for the site. The number of required parking spaces is based upon the floor area of the
buildings. Sixteen parking spaces are required for the existing building. Seven spaces will be
required for the new building, for a total of 23 spaces. The existing parking plan satisfies this
requirement.
DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The Recommended Conditions of Approval included the requirement of the applicant to address
specific desigu issues for review by the ARB. Those recommended conditions were as follows:
The applicant shall revise site plans to incorporate additional landscaping features at the site,
including a landscaped strip along Embarcadero Road within the leaseholder area. The
landscaped strip shall contain plant material that is suitable for the Baytands area.
The applicant shall incorporate sustainable materials and construction techniques into the
project. The ARB will review materials, energy use, solar orientation and other elements of
sustainable design for consistency with the ARB’s sustainability standards.
1903 Embarcaero Road Page 2
The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaped plan and sustainability statement for the
project as Attachment C to this staff report. The applicant will also provide a more detailed
discussion of these issues at the A_RB meeting.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Compliance with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the 1979 Baylands Master Plan
(amended in 1987) are contained in the December 18, 2002 Planning and Transportation
Commission staff report (Attachment D).
As the project site is located within a Site and Design zone district, the project is required to
comply with the goals of the Site and Design district. These goals are in described in the form of
project findings. These Site and Design findings with a description of how this project meets the
findings are in Attachment E of this staff report.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of this ARB review of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local
newspaper of general circulation.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per section 15303, which exempts the construction of a limited number of new,
small facilities less than 2,500 square feet. The !,643 square foot building fails within this
range. The Planning and Transportation Commission staff report indicates that the project
would be exempt from the provisions of CEQA, per section 1530 t,which exempts sma!l
additions to existing buildings. As this will technically be a new building, this exemption
would not apply.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Architectural Review- Board Standards for Review
Attachment B: Recommended Conditions of Approval
Attachment C: Plan set (ARB members only)
Attachment D: Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, December 18, 2002
Attachment E: Site and Design Findings
COURTESY COPIES
Bellomo Architects, t02 Universit37 Ave # B Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dr. Jim Brandt, 560 Center Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Victor Slone, 1900 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Pat Roy, Roy Properties, 1660 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 204, San Jose, CA 95125
Prepared by:
Manager Review:
Steven Turner, Planner
.Amy French, Manager of Current Planning/~
1903 Embarcaero Road Page 3
ATTACHMENT A
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
Airport Building Addition and Consolidation of Uses "
1903 Embarcadero Road! File No. 02-D-11, 02-UP-30
The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers the goals and
purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it complies with the Standards for Architectural Review as
required in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC.
(1)The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s
Comprehensive Plan in thatthe project complies with Policy T-57 of the
Comprehensive Plan, which states, "Support the continued vitality and
effectiveness of the Palo Alto Airport without sign~cantly increasing its intensi~
or intruding into open space areas. The airport should remain limited to a single
runway and two j~xed-based operators."
(2)
(3)
The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the building
wilt be located in a developed area at the Palo Alto Airport and will be of a size and scale
that is similar to the existing structures at the airport. The building will not overwhelm
the site and will use materials and colors that are compatible and complimentary with the
Baylands;
The design is appropriate to the fimction of the project in that the building would contain
a general business service, which would require a prominent entrance and easy path of
travel to the building for customers and clients of the tenant. The design of the project
incorporates these features. The interior space would provide appropriate space for the
fimctions of the building, which include sales and administrative offices, conference
rooms and lobby areas;
(10)Access to the property" and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians,
cyclists and vehicles in that pubic parking spaces for the use of the building are provided
on-site. Visitors to the site will not have to cross the main driveway to enter the building;
(11)
(12)
Natural features are appropriately preserved and inte~ated with the project in that, as
conditioned, the project will improve the existing landscaping and add additional
landscaped areas along Embarcadero Road. The new landscaping will contain plant
material that is compatible with the Baylands Park;
The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are
appropriate expression to the design and function in that the new finishes will be similar
1903 Embarcaero Road Page 4
to those found on the existing buildings at the site. In addition, the existing buildings will
be repaired, cleaned and improved with finishes and materials similar to the new
building. The result will be two separate structures that are unified in their design and
materials selection. The new finishes will maintain the namrat look and textures that exist
at many of the buildings at the airport. These materials will be compatible with the
adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions;
(13)The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses,
open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and
functional environment in that as conditioned, the final selection of plant material will
enhance the structures and provide a sense of transition between the developed areas in
the Baylands to more natural or undisturbed areas of the park. The landscape concept
depicts an appropriate unit3, with the various buildings on the site in that the native
vegetation to be used will enhance the natural materials to be used on the buildings;
(14)As conditioned, the plant material would be suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of
being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-
resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance;
(15)The design, as conditioned, is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy and
sustainable building design elements including, but not limited to solar access, certified
materials, and energy efficient elements.
ARB Standards 4,5,6,7,8, and 9 do not apply to the project.
1903 Embarcaero Road Page 5
ATTACHMENT B
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Airport Building Addition and Consolidation of Uses
1903 Embarcadero Road/File No. 02-D-11, 02-UP-30
BEFORE SUBM!TTAL TO TH~ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB)
Plannin~ Division
1.1 The applicant shall revise site plans to incorporate additional landscaping features at the
site, including a landscaped strip along Embarcadero Road within the leaseholder area.
The landscaped strip shall contain plant material that is suitable for the Baylands area.
The proposed landscaping shall be reviewed by the ARB for recommendation to the City
Council.
1.2 The applicant shall incorporate sustainable materials and construction techniques into the
project. The ARB will review materials, energy use, solar orientation and other elements
of sustainable design for consistency with the ARB’s sustainability standards.
BEFORE SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT
Buildin~ Division
2.1 The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the full scope of the
construction including all site development, u~itity installations, architectural, strucmra!,
electrical, plumbing and mechanical work associated v4th the proposed project.
2.2 The entire project is to be included under a single building permit and shall not be phased
under multiple permits.
2.3 Design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building
permit and are to be deferred shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of
deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application.
2.4 All entrances and exits from the proposed addition shall be accessible per CBC Section
1133B.1.1.1
2.5 The building shall be served by a single electrical service in accordance with National
Electric Code Art. 230-2. The location of the electrical service shall require prior
1903 Embarcaero Road Page
approval by the Inspection Services Division and shall be located at an exterior location
or in a room or enclosure accessible directly from the exterior.
2.6 The plans shall indicate how the building’s electrical system is to be separated so that
each tenant space is independent and tenants have unrestricted access to the overcurrent
devices serving their areas.
2.7 The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area
calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to type of construction.
2.8 All building occupants and tenants shall file an application for Use and Occupancy and
receive a ~certiflcate of occupancy" prior to occupying the building.
Fire Department
3.1 The new building shall be separated from the existing building in accordance with the
California State Building Code.
Public Works
4.!The existing building is located within a FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA). If the cost of the work on the structure is greater than 50% of the depreciated,
appraised value of the existing structure, it will be considered to be a substantial
improvement. When a project in a SFHA is a substantial improvement, the existing
structure and the new construction must be designed to conform to flood zone
requirements. If this cost is less than 50%, flood zone requkements will not be
applicable. A professional appraisal of the project building must be presented with the
Building Permit application submittal.
4.2 The proposed structure is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), with a
designation of AE with the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) 8 feet above sea level. As a
result, the below items need to be addressed in subsequent revisions of the Building
Permit submission:
The proposed structure is in a Special Flood Hazard Area and requires openings in
enclosed areas to permit the free entry and exit of flood waters. This includes areas
such as the crawl space and at-grade garage. There must be at least two openings for
each enclosed area with 1 sq in of opening for each 1 sq fi of enclosed area. These
openings must be placed no more than 12 inches above lowest adjacent grade.
Provide on the drawings the following:
a schedule showing the areas enclosed;
the area of each opening;
1903 Embarcaero Road Page 7
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
the number of openings required;
a detail showing the location of the vent relative to adjacent gade;
and the location of the openings on the foundation plan.
These should also be incorporated into the structural drawings, since flood openings
in the foundation affect the structural en~,meer s design. Guidelines for flood
openings can be found in FEMA Technical Bulletin 1-93, "Openings in Foundation
Walls."
Show on the structural drawings a detail of the foundation and wall for the garage. Show
where the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) is and show flood-resistant materials below the
BFE.
All appliances, including furnaces, hot water heaters and air conditioning pads, must be
placed at or above the BFE. Show the locations of these appliances on the floor plan!site
plan with the associated elevation relative to mean sea level.
Show the method and type of insulation proposed for the subfloor area. If it is to be
placed below the BFE, show that these items are approved flood resistant materials.
Show where the base flood elevation is located on the structural details. Show that all
construction materials located below the base flood elevation are flood-resistant. Consult
FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-93, "Flood-Resistant Materials Requirements" for a listing of
acceptable materials.
The following statement shall be added to the plans:
"The ’as-built’ elevation of the pad must be submitted on a FEMA Elevation Certificate
and accepted by Public Works Engineering as meeting Special Flood Hazard Area
requirements prior to final city approval and sign-off of the Building Permit. This
certificate shall be submitted to the Public Works Inspector."
The elevation of the top of the lowest floor must be certified on a letter by a licensed land
surveyor or civil engineer and accepted by Public Works Engineering as meeting Special
Flood Hazard Area requirements. This certification shall occur when the floor framing is
first established at a stage of construction when the floor still correctable with minimum
effort. Further building inspections will not be provided by the Building Inspection
Division until Public Works Engineering has received and approved the certificate.
Utilities En_~ineerin~ - Electrical
5.1 The customer/contractor shall inform Utilities Engineering at (650) 566-4551 if there is
any change to the existing distribution system in order to provide the electric service to
the proposed project. Any change that is required in order to provide electric service shall
be made at the customer’s expense. All under~ound utilities must me marked prior to
excavation. Customer must schedule a field meeting with Utilities Engineering before
1903 Embarcaero Road Page 8
commencing the construction. Customer is responsible for coordinating the relay settings
with City’s Engineering/Operations Department. City will provide the detailed comments
and cost estimate (if any) when the plans are submitted to the Building Department for
review and approval.
Utilities Marketing
6.1 Prior to issuance of either a Building Permit or Grading Permit, all common area
landscaping shall be approved by the Utilities Marketing Services division of the Utilities
Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape glarer Efficiency Standards
of the City of Yalo _alto. A water budget shall be assigned to the project and a dedicated
irrigation water meter shall be required. Call the Landscape Plan Review Specialist at
650.329.2549 for additional information.
1903 Embarcaero Road Page 9
ATTACHMENT C
PLAN SET
Airport Building Addition and Consolidation of Uses
1903 Embarcadero Road! File No. 02-D-11, 02-UP-30
Plan set (for ARB members and project file only)
1903 Embarcaero Road Page 10
Attachment F
Excerpt Minutes of January 16, 2002
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Chair Lippert: The next item is 1903 Embarcadero Road, [02-D-11, 02-UP-30]: Request
by Bellomo Architects on behalf of the City of Palo Alto (property owner), County of
Santa Clara (leaseholder) and Dr. Jim Brandt (fixed-based operator) for Site and Design
review of the construction of a 1,643 square foot addition to an existing airport building,
which will contain the offices of Victor Aviation (a tenant currently located at the
airport), new landscaping features and improvements to the existing building Zone
District: PF (D). Environmental Assessment: Categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301.
Steven, would you like to introduce the project?
Staff Turner: Staffs recommendation is that the ARB recommend approval to the City
Council for the proposed project based upon the findings in Attachment A and subject to
the suggested conditions of approval set forth in Attachment B. I would also direct you
to the Planning Commission Staff Report on page 7 where it discusses the site and design
review findings. And Staff asks that you consider the project based upon those findings
as well.
This is a Site and Design application. It’s for a 1,643 square foot building at the airport.
It will be a new building to allow an existing tenant, Victor Aviation to consolidate office
space at the airport. Some of the characteristics of the airport site itself. It’s a public
facility zoned district with a Site and Design Overlay District. Site and Design Overlay
Districts are attached to certain zoning districts within the City where special design
considerations above and beyond what the ARB normally reviews are placed upon
projects within those sites because of their sensitivity, mainly due to environmental
regulations.
The site is owned by the City of Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto leases the airport site to
Santa Clara County. That existing lease will expire in 2017. Santa Clara County leases
the airport and then turn to two fixed-based operators at the site. The current project is
located on a site that’s leased to the Airport Management Group and that’s represented by
Dr. Jim Brandt. The existing leaseholder area for the project is 3.12 acres. Currently
there’s a single-story building on the site of 3,905 square feet, approximately 24 parking
spaces. It was constructed in 1976 and it’s kind of a [mansard] shingled roof. A building
with wood siding, wide eaves that provides sun and rain protection. And Victor Aviation
currently occupies space at the airport not at this fixed-based operator but on other
locations at the airports and also off site of the airport.
The project is at the airport and the airport is actually in a flood zone so any new
construction that happens at the airport would have to be raised out of the flood plane.
Also part of the project is remodel of the existing building. Similar materials would be
used. There would be an addition of kind of a new roof system, new wood siding and
new- window system. There would be a landscaped water feature in front of the new
building. It would be an aviation theme park with educational kiosks around the water
feature. No additional parking is proposed for the site. There are 24 spaces in the
existing parking lot and that would accommodate the existing in the proposed uses at the
site.
The project requires a Conditional Use permit to allow- this airport related use to occupy
space at the airport. The Conditional Use permit was reviewed by the Planning and
Transportation Commission at their meeting on December 18th and they recommended
approval of the project and the Conditional Use permit to the City Council. After the
ARB’s review, if the ARB recommends approval, the next step would be to City Council
for further decision on the project. That concludes the Staff Report. We have the
architect for the applicant present to make a presentation on the project. It’s a minor
project. They have 5 minutes to speak.
Chair Lippert: This is a minor so you only have 5 minutes to make your presentation and
introduce yourself.
Ms. Finche Wiiatno. Bellomo Architects: We are representing our client, Dr. Jim Brandt
to add this new addition on the airport site. I’ll just skip through the introduction since
Steven had already gone through that. The scope of the project is a minimal remodeling
of the existing building which includes removal of the mansard roof that’s existing and
replacing it with 3-foot zinc panels and repainting of the wood sidings to a similar color
of the existing color, and replacements of some windows and do some interior
improvements. And also addition of the 1,643 square foot office space and new
landscape features. As Steven mentioned before, the project addition response to the
consolidation of Victor Aviation’s airport related uses.
Here I’m showing a site plan. Just to orient you in the drawing, this way is North, and
this is the single-story existing building that is to be remodeled and this is the new
addition at the southeast end of the existing building. What we’re doing is removing the
old concrete pavement in front of the building and replacing it with new concrete hand
trowel and natural finish and we’re also adding a new water feature in front of the
building. It will be sort of a [pond], a one foot deep [pond] with concrete stepping stones
that wilt lead people to the educational kiosks or plaque that holds aviation information
and airport history. We will keep the existing trees as is and will not be removing any
existing trees.
The Staff recommends that we enhance the landscaping along Embarcadero Road but
what we ware trying to do is to keep the site disturbances to a minimal and not to disturb
the existing tarmac that’s here represented by this line here. So in order to do that, we’re
not moving the parking but if you see the sketch that I passed out. At the right top hand
comer, we sketched out a scheme that shows an additional landscape area by skewing the
parking, all of it. And also we are adding a new canopy in front of the existing building.
Here it shows the full plan of the new building. This is the entrance to the lobby, there’s a
conference room, 3 office spaces, a restroom and there’s 2 additional secondary entries
into the building at the back.
As Steven mentioned before, this new building has to be raised above the [8x4] feet and
there’s a 6-inch separation from the existing building per UBC. So with the additional
height, we tried to keep the new additions still compatible with the existing building by
breaking up the volume than terracing the roofline. And also adding the white canopy
overhang in front of the [gausses] which acts as sun shade devices and also visually
lowers the building. And also as I mentioned before, there’ll be new landscape
improvement that includes the water feature in the front edge of the new addition. We’ll
enhance the landscaping at the comer driveway entry of Embarcadero Road. In order to
be respectful to the general feel and [maturity] of the Baylands, we have decided to go
with a more similar materials with the surrounding buildings which is wood sidings and
concrete. We are also thinking of incorporating sustainable design features into this new
building. We’ll be using FSC certified wood sidings, cedar. We’ll also use concrete with
a high flash content.
Chair Lippert: Just wrap it up and we’ll have questions for you.
Ms. Wiiatno: Just to wrap it up, the other materials used in the building would be
preferably the painted steel panel at the flat bends and the canopy in front of the existing
building, the zinc panels and the parapet of the existing buildings and the windows will
be reflective of the windows with aluminum framing.
Chair Lippert: Thank you. We will have some questions for you. Susan, why don’t you
begin.
BM Eschweiler: Question about the materials. There’s a perforate steel panels. It says
that the new overhang and then flood [vent] screenings.
Ms. Wiiatno: Right. If you look at the model here, the perforated steel panel will be
covering all the flood vents at the foundation, the 4 feet above ~ound.
BM Eschweiler: And will it have any finish on it or it’s just natural steel?
Ms. Wiiatno: It’ll be galvanized painted with the color that’s shown right below. It’ll be a
dark gray.
BM Eschweiler: Is that the same steel panels that are the parapet on the old building?
Ms.Wiiatno: Yes, the canopy in front of the existing building, yes.
BM Eschweiler: The drawings, however, show" the perforated steel.
Ms. Wi_iatno: For the parapet, we show perforated panels but we have since amended it
and decided to go with zinc panels. That’s also shown on the material board.
BM Eschweiler: Okay, that clarifies your intent. That’s all my questions for the moment.
Chair Lippert: Judith.
BM Wasserman: I should say that I spoke with the application at her office this week. I
had a question about the concrete overhang at the entry which is shown in 2 or 3 different
sizes in different places. Could you clarify which depth your intent is? The drawing that
you brought us shows a 2-foot height. Is that what’s shown in the sketches on the cover
sheet or is that what’s shown on the drawings on the inside of the set?
Ms. Wijatno: We have gone through several iterations regarding the depth of this
concrete overhang. Right now, the one that we are going with is the one about 1-foot 9-
inches which is a slimmer than you see on the front page of the drawing set. So we’ll be
looking into deepening it, pending structural analysis and client approval.
BM Wasserman: Is that what’s shown on the model?
Ms.Wi_iatno: The model is showing the current one.
BM Wasserman: And this drawing is shown as 2 feet?
Ms.Wijatno: Right.
BM Wasserman: So it’s a structural question. You didn’t get the steel to hold it up.
Okay. I think most of the questions that I had were answered on Monday but there was
one question that I had was where the cedar boards meet the concrete at the entry. What
happens at that intersection?
Ms. Wi_iatno: We have yet to decide on a detail but we’re looking into that.
BM Wasserman: Thank you.
Chair Lippert: Drew.
Vice-Chair Maran: I also met with the applicant this week. Are there any other issues at
stake here that maybe brought out after going through these reviews? Is there anything
historic on the property? Got any concrete monuments an~vhere? I’m making this as
part of my routine questions these days.
Staff Turner: No, Staff has not determined any historic significance. The flood zone
issue is important because currently the existing buildings do not meet flood zone
regulations and that this new building would have to be raised out of the flood zone. The
project or the airport is actually in technically in the Baylands area. There is a 1987
Baylands Master Plan that is in effect that controls the uses and development out at the
Baylands. That Baylands Master Plan indicates that there shall be no new intrusion into
natural open spaces for new development. This project is a new building on existing
developed area. The Baylands Master Plan also gets into kind of bigger picture items at
the airport in terms of not len~hening a runway and other types of issues. But this
project, of course, does not involve len~hening or expanding the existing airport uses
beyond really what’s already there. So Staff feels that we’ve identified all of the issues
and the Planning Commission did review these Land Use questions at their meeting.
Vice-Chair Maran: Would the Baylands preserve be overseen by the Planning
Commission? Who oversees that?
Staff Turner: Well, the Baylands Master Plan acts like a Comprehensive Plan or a
specific plan for the Baylands. So when the City receives an application for development
within that area, we compare the project with not only the Comprehensive Plan but also
the Baylands Master Plan and we have to find that the project meets the policies,
programs and guidelines of both plans. Whereas a project not in the Baylands or just in
an area with no specific plan, we would just be reviewing the project for the
Comprehensive Plan compliance.
Vice-Chair Maran: And so the Baylands Comprehensive Plan is a Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan or falls within Palo Alto’s Planning Department Administration of
the Comprehensive Plan?
Staff Turner: That’s right.
Vice-Chair Maran: The only other question is, you went from an aluminum siding to a
cedar siding. Can you say why you went from one to the other?
Ms. Wi_iatno: Our first selection was aluminum siding at the facade of the new building.
But we decided to go with wood siding mainly because we want to be more compatible
with the surrounding buildings and not to differ so much. We want to have a modern
building but yet not to deviate so much from the existing building that’s standing right
next to it. That’s why we went with wood siding.
Vice-Chair Maran: Thank you. That’s all I have.
Chair Lippert: I have a couple of questions regarding landscaping. If I look at the
original photo of the project, the density of the landscaping is very dense. It’s very dense
along the front area where you’re going to be putting that building. Is there a way to
increase the density of the landscaping along the base of the building?
Ms. Wiiatno: I guess the only place, because we have added the water feature in front of
the building, the only place that I can think of to increase density of like foliage and all
the bushes would be surrounding the pond itself because right now we are proposing
planting Bayland grasses or native California grasses, drought-resistant. But if we need
to increase density of greenery that would probably be the place to put it. And also if you
look at the [big rendering] perspective we can also increase density at the corner.
Chair Lippert: That’s what I’m talking about, along where the ramp is in that area. Could
the density be increased along there? And also it looks like there’s a parking area
between the driveway parking area and the addition. Could that be landscaped to a little
more densely?
Ms. Wiiatno: I’m not sure where you are referring to the parking area.
Chair Lippert: Along the base of the building. There’s a driveway that comes in there.
Ms. Wiiatno: I guess we could so long as it doesn’t conflict with the tarmac that’s
already there, we could definitely increase the foliage over there.
Chair Lippert: Well, even if it does conflict a little bit with the driveway or the tarmac
there, you could plant up against the building, could you not?
Ms. Wiiatno: Yes.
Chair Lippert: Is that a problem, Steve?
Staff Turner: No. Actually, Staff would agree with you. After reviewing the plans, Staff
also concurs with the Board in terms of that there should be additional opportunities for
landscaping on the site. In our recommended Conditions of Approval 1.1, we asked the
applicant to incorporate additional landscaping features at the site including development
of a landscape strip along Embarcadero Road, which actually would be consistent with
the Baylands Master Plan goal and that we would ask that the revised landscaping plan
return to the ARB for a review" and approval before City Council.
Chair Lippert: Okay. Going on to the building, did you look at maybe alternative
materials to define the planes of the new building?
Ms. Wiiatno: Alternative materials in terms of what?
Chair Lippert: Well, you basically have a curve surface and you have a box that sort of
pulls it from that. Do you look at creating some contrast?
Ms. Wi_iatno: In terms of materials?
Chair Lippert: Yes.
Ms. Wiiatno: Right now, the curve portion of the building is more glass than anything
else.
Chair Lippert: Right, but you have an area above that that looks like it’s cement or
plaster or panel.
Ms. Wijatno: It’s wood siding.
Chair Lippert: Okay. And then you have this box that comes out. Now is that all wood?
Ms. Wi_iatno: That’s all wood siding.
Chair Lippert: Did you look at maybe using some materials there that had a little more
contrast? Because they are different forms.
Ms. Wijatno: Right. We didn’t specifically divide in that sense. We are more looking
into having it transition from the existing building which has older materials and
transitioning it into newer materials. So we are not looking into dividing the different
volumes of the building in terms of materials.
Chair Lippert: I have one last question. The 6½ inch space that you have to have is
between the two buildings? How is that going to be dealt with? Is it going to be
something that covers that space?
Ms. Wi_iatno: I think it’s going to be left open.
Chair Lippert: So when I walk past the front of the building, I’m going to see this long
narrow 6-inch space that continues down between the two buildings?
Ms. Wiiatno: Yes, basically.
Chair Lippert: Because on the back side of the building, you have a little overlap there.
Ms. Wiiatno: So it won’t be seen.
Chair Lippert: Why not do something on the front of the building by continuing your
panel across it? It can be made removable if it needs some access.
Ms. Wiiatno: Sure, I think we can look into that.
Chair Lippert: Are there any other questions?
BM Eschweiler: Yes, I have a couple more questions. There are 3 stairways in one ramp
coming out of this building. And it’s only for 1,600 square feet. What is the requirement
for those stairs and ramp?
Ms. Wiiatno: What do you mean requirements?
BM Eschweiler: Why do we have so many stairs?
Ms. Wi_iatno: Just for accessibility, access into the building, not necessarily a
requirement. You have 2 exits of the building but that’s about it.
BM Eschweiler: I believe the way that it’s written up that this is an addition to the
existing building, yet there doesn’t seem to be a connection between the two internally.
Ms. Wiiatno: Right. Technically, it’s a separate building because of per UBC, unless if
we connect it then we’ll have to upgrade the existing building and pushing it 4 feet above
grade, too. So we’re trying to keep the existing building as is and have minimal
remodeling as much as possible. That’s why we have to separate the two buildings.
BM Eschweiler: Okay, so that’s why there’s a physical separation?
Ms. Wiiatno: Yes.
BM Eschweiler: And then architecturally, it seems to be expressed very differently than
the new building. The new addition is expressed very differently than the existing
remodeled portion. Could you describe what the intent was of the new addition?
Ms. Wi_iatno: We don’t want to basically copy another, just an extension of the existing
building. We’re trying to put something more modern, more or less on to the site. But
yet by using the various materials that is compatible with the existing building, we tried
to keep it as low profile as possible but yet have a new modern building in the airport
side.
BM Eschweiler: And what is the design intent of the style of structure that you’ve
selected? What is the design intent? Can you describe the philosophy of the design or
interpretation of that and why are you doing what you’re doing with the new addition?
Ms. Wijatno: Basically we’re working with volumes and we try not to have too many
odd shapes so we work with volumes and then bringing up the volumes and layering the
volumes so that it wouldn’t be too bulky because it needs to be 4 feet of the ground that’s
why we have the different volumes. And then we also terrace the roof lines sort of break
out the bulk of this building. That’s basically a simply way of resolving it.
BM Eschweiler: And the work that’s being done on the old building, you’re taking off the
mansard rook putting up a new zinc parapet and then extending or making a canopy?
Ms.Wiiatno: Right.
BM Eschweiler: And then re-staining the wood to match?
Ms.Wijatno: Yes.
BM Eschweiler: So the wood of the new building wil! match the wood of the old
building?
Ms. Wiiatno: No. The existing building will remain as is, the color will remain as is.
We are just re-staining with a new stain.
BM Eschweiler: And the requirement for the water moving underneath the building,
that’s a flood zone requirement?
Ms. Wiiatno: Yes, I believe so.
BM Eschweiler: And if you created a solid concrete wall at the base of that building,
would that also be allowed or do you have to have the water move underneath the
building?
Ms. Wiiatno: The wall beneath the building is only at intervals. They are not throughout
the perimeter of the building. So we do have flood vents that allows water through the
under side of the building.
BM Eschweiler: Right. I understand that’s the approach that’s been taken but I’ve never
seen another building like it so it seemed unusual that one would allow water to come
underneath the building.
Chair Lippert: Any other questions? [silence] With that, this is the time when we open a
hearing to the members of the public. Any one who wishes to speak to this item, you
may do so at this time. Seeing none, we’ll return to the Board for comments and a
motion. Susan, why don’t you begin.
BM Eschweiler: Comments regarding the. structure. It’s definitely a challenge when you
have to raise a building 4 feet. I understand the flood zone requirement, particularly a
building of this small scale because the height of it doesn’t warrant, it’s such a small
building that pushing it up 4 feet is a great proportion of the entire whole. I take
exception to the number of stairs that come out in and out of this building. It’s just such a
tiny building and it could be this little jewel box entry at the comer of the airport which I
think it’s on its way to being but having so many stairs and ramps and railings coming out
of it, I think it really detracts from that jewel box look.
So I would like to see that there’d be some studies about eliminating or reducing the scale
and number of stairs. Ramps obviously have to have some kind of an accessibility ramp
to the front door, I understand that. But maybe there’s another way to do it so it’s more
sculptural and it really becomes a part of that composition. The materials, I like the
natural wood. I believe it’s going to weath~er to gray, correct? And then that would then
match the zinc color that would be on the parapets. Having used zinc before, I ~know that
you have to be very careful in how it’s detailed to make sure that it becomes flat and
doesn’t oil [can] so I think the details of that need to be looked at. I like the zinc idea
better than the perforated metal for the roof screen aspect. So other than that, that’s my
comments.
Chair Lippert: Judith.
BM Wasserman: I agree that the hard part of this project is the 4-foot elevation. I don’t
have the same problem with the stairs and the ramp that Susan does but I would support
Lee’s direction on the increased landscaping. I think that the landscaping you’ve shown at
the corner of the parking lot that’s up in the sketch that you brought us today is a good
beginning. I don’t think you can actually, from what you described to me in the office the
actual part where the airplanes sit, is it a different elevation from a parking lot. And so
that you’re kind of stuck with the edge of the parking lot in order to have the required
back-up space for the parking spaces. So I think that that triangular slot and the section
around the handicap parking is a good place to do the kind of vegetation that Lee was
asking for which I think is a good idea. Also, the landscaping right around the building
that is shown in the hatching between the parking lot and the side of the building is
another place where you could put in more vegetation so we would need to have a
landscaping plan come back to us. When you bring that back, if you can bring the details
on the connection between the cedar and the concrete and a final determination of the
overhang. I’m in favor of a deeper overhang if you could possibly do what I think it
makes that link between the old and the new building more significant which I think
would be an improvement. And I believe that’s the extent of my comments. And thank
you for this sustainability checklist. It’s helpful.
Chair Lipper: Drew.
Vice-Chair Maran: I agree with Judith’s and Susan’s comments. And I also want to
commend the sustainabitity checklist, it’s really helpful to have it all in one place. I am in
support of the project. I find that it to be a handsome addition and update to an area that
badly needs it. I’m sure it’s very attractive when it was built but now it’s time to upgrade
and update. It’s no San Francisco International Airport but it sure could be a great place
to go and hang out. It inspired me for the first time to go walk around the area and see
how many interesting resources there are around there. I never knew how interesting a
golf driving range could be. And the airport itself is a really fascinating place and I just
think it’s great to upgrade it and bring it up to date and I also think you can hardly see this
thing from the road and it’s a really good addition to the area.
I’d like to make a motion which is to approve the project with the conditions as
mentioned by Judith. Judith, do you want to state those conditions?
BM Wasserman: Additional landscaping at the corner as shown and around the building
and the details on the connection between the cedar and the concrete to come back, and
the details on the zinc parapet.
Chair Lippert: I will second the motion and add to that also that there be a reduction in
the number of stairs or the width of some of those stairs. I think that the access is really
10
another issue. Just as a sort of a comment, one other thing that you might want to take a
look at. I really like your pond idea. I think that has to return to us a little more
developed. But the handicap ramp that you have there, you might also want to look at
sort of separating those two ramps a little bit and doing maybe some planting in between
the two of them, sort of disguising the ramp. But t think one of the things that they do so
wonderfully in of all place is Disneyland is that they don’t like to see the ramps. So we
have a motion and second. Let’s restate the motion to make sure we’ve got it right.
Staff Turner: We have a motion by Board Member Maran, seconded by Board Member
Lippert for recommending approval of the project subject to the architectural review
findings and the site and design findings and subject to the recommended conditions of
approval. Including: the request for additional landscaping for details on the intersection
between the cedar and concrete elements of the project; details on the zinc parapet; a
response to the Board’s request on the reduction or minimization of the number of stairs
and ramps leading up to the project; and further details of the landscaped pond and
aviation kiosk area.
Chair Lippert: Great. Did you want to come back to us before it goes to Council? Was
that also another thing?
Staff Turner: That is Staffs recommendation to have this come back before Council.
Chair Lippert: Do we want to put that on as a date certain?
Staff Turner: You may. You can ask the applicant if they would be available. We have
a meeting scheduled for February 6th.
Chair Lippert: Does that work for you on February 6th? Okay. With that, all those in
favor, say aye? Aye. Opposed? We have one abstention. So it’s 4-0-1-0. Thank you.
With that, we will move on to the next item.
t
11
1903 Embarcadero Attachment G
02-UP-03
02-D-11
PROPOSED SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE CHECKLIST
!. SUSTAINABLE SITES
Erosion 8, Sedimentation Control
L Site Selection
Urban Redevelof)ment
Brownfield Redevelopment
Alternative Transportation: Public Transportatior! Access
Alternative Transportation: Bicycle Storage & Chanc~inq Rooms
Alternative Transportation: Alternative Fuel Refueling Stations
Altemative Transportation: Parking Capacity. / Preferred Parking for CarMan o(~ols
Reduced .gife Disturhan~.~.: Protect or Re~tnre Open Space
R~dHe.ed .qif~ Fli~fHrhanr:~’ D~wlopm~nt Fnn ,tprin;
Stormwater Management: Rate / Ouatify / Treatment
I and~nap~. & E~f Design to Reduce Neat Islands: Non-Roof
I ~nd~c~,n~ ~, P~t i’)~£i0n fn IR~dll~. N~f Islands" Roof
Light Pollution Reduction (zero-cutoff)
" ~!/NA
N/A
N/A
NIAN/A
N/A
N/AN/A
N/A
N/A
2. WATER EFFICIENCY
Water Effini~nf Landsc~£1~0’ ~e4,j~ hy 50%. Nn Pnf~bl~ l lse. NO Irrig~finn
!nnova~ve wastewater Techno!og es
Water Use Red,_,cb’on: 20% -30% Red,J~on
3 F:NF~P~Y,~ ATMORPt4FRF
Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning
Minimum Energy Performance
CFC Reduction in HVAC & R EouiDment: Zero use of CFC-Based refrigerants In new
Buildin~ HVAC&R base building systems
Ootimize Energy Performance: Passive Solar. Daytighting
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Renewable Enerqy: Photovoltaics, Biomass, Wind Enerqy
Additional Commissioning
i
Ozone Depletion
Measurement & Verification
Greta Po,ve"
4. MATERIALS & RESOURCES
Storage & Collection of RecyclablesIExisting Building:
Building Reuse - Maintaininq Existin.q Shell/Structure (ext. skin & framinq)
Non-Shell (walls. floor covednqs, and ceilinq systems)
New Building:
Concrete with high flyash content
FSC Certified Wood
5. INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Minimum IAQ Performance: Compliant with ASHRAE62-1999
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control
Carbon Dioxide Monitodnq
Increase Ventilation Effectiveness
Cons~ction IAQ Management Plan: Dufinu Construction/Before Occuoancy
Low Emittinq Materials:
Adhesives & Sealants
Ca ,rpets
Paints
Composite Wood
Indoor O.h~minal & Pnlh~tant ,£ourn~, CnntrolControllability of Systems: Perimeter
Non-Perimeter
~..~Therrnal Comfort
ay ght & View: Daylight 75% of Spaces
View’ior 90% of Spaces
161 irma ~vNr.Ofi~VnA:, OD~tn oDES IG N PROCESS
LEED TM Accredited Professional
I
l N/A
I N/A
!N/A
!N/A
i NIA
I
! N/A
.,/
,/
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/AN/A ......