Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2001-03-19SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2001 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Cyr N. Miller, Vice -Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Gary 0. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 7:15 PM: Mayor Boro announced the Closed Session item. CLOSED SESSION - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 - 7:15 PM: 1. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Case Name: MHC Financing, et al. v. City of San Rafael U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. of CA, No. C003785 VRW Mayor Boro announced that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:21 PM None CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Special Public Hearing of Minutes approved as submitted. Monday, January 22, 2001, Special Closed Session/Open Session of Friday, February 23, 2001 and Regular Meeting of Monday, March 5, 2001 (CC) Call for Applications for Appointment to Fill Vacancy on the Planning Commission Due to the Death of Planning Commissioner Richard O'Brien (Term to Cover Two and One-half Months of Unexpired Term and a Full Four-year Term to Expire End of June, 2005) (CC) —File 9-2-6 Approved staff recommendation: a) Called for applications to fill vacancy on the Planning Commission due to the death of Planning Commissioner Richard O'Brien (term to cover two and one-half months of unexpired term and a full four-year term to expire end of June, 2005); b) Set deadline for receipt of applications for Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 12:00 Noon in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209, City Hall; and c) Set date for interviews of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, April 16, 2001, commencing at 6:00 p.m. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 1 CONSENT CALENDAR (Cont.): 0 R Call for Applications for Appointments to Fill Two, Four -Year Terms on the Board of Library Trustees Due to Expiration of Terms of Ellen Caulfield and Glena Coleman (Terms to Expire End of April, 2005) (CC) — File 9-2-3 Call for Applications for Appointments to Fill Three, Four -Year Terms on the Cultural Affairs Commission Due to Expiration of Terms of Linda Spackman, Phyllis B. Thelen and Jay Yinger (Terms to Expire End of April, 2005) (CC) — File 9-2-24 Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) — File 116 x 9-1 7. Resolution of Appreciation to Richard Hamilton, Firefighter, for Assisting Two California Highway Patrol Officers in the Apprehension of a Suspect (CM) — File 102 x 9-3-31 K Resolution Authorizing an Agreement with Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson, LLC to Perform a Review of Marin Sanitary Service's 2001 Rate Application (MS) — File 4-3-306 x 4-3-32 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approved staff recommendation: a) Called for applications for appointments to fill two four-year terms on the Board of Library Trustees to the end of April, 2005; b) Set deadline for receipt of applications for Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 12:00 Noon in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209; and c) Set date for interviews of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, May 7, 2001, commencing at 6:00 p.m. Approved staff recommendation: a) Called for applications for appointments to fill three, four-year terms on the Cultural Affairs Commission to the end of April, 2005; b) Set deadline for receipt of applications for Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 12:00 Noon in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209; and c) Set date for interviews of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, May 7, 2001, commencing at 6:30 p.m. Approved staff recommendation: SB 10 Safe Routes to Schools, Senator Neil Soto — SUPPORT AB 3 Property Tax Revenue Shifts. Assembly Member Roy Ashburn — SUPPORT AB 100 Property Tax Revenue Shifts. Assembly Member Joe Simitian — SUPPORT AB 859 Property Tax Revenue Shifts. Assembly Member Pat Wiggins — SUPPORT AB 1355 Property Tax Revenue Shifts. Assembly Member Lynn Daucher — SUPPORT AB 227 Transportation: Funding. Assembly Member John Longville - SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 10790 — RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RICHARD HAMILTON, FIREFIGHTER, FOR ASSISTING TWO CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL OFFICERS IN THE APPREHENSION OF A SUSPECT RESOLUTION NO. 10791 — RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH HILTON, FARNKOPF AND HOBSON, LLC TO PERFORM A REVIEW OF MARIN SANITARY SERVICE'S 2001 RATE APPLICATION SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR (Cont.): 9. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1763 —AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE), TO AMEND TITLE 14, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 14.05.022 LAND USE REGULATIONS (4SRC, CSMU, HO, 2/3 MUE, 2/3 MUW, WEV, 5/M R/O) TO AMEND FOOTNOTE 9 DEFINING REAR GROUND LEVEL AND DELETING FOOTNOTE (18) FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES IN THE WEV BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES IN 4SRC AND DELETING A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE IN 4SRC (ZC01-02) (CD) —File 10-3 x 10-2 10. Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director or Deputy Director to Execute Federal and/or State Funding Agreements Through the California Department of Transportation (PW) — File 171 x 11-16 x 11-15-1 x 9-3-40 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 3 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approved final adoption of Ordinance No. 1763. RESOLUTION NO. 10792 — RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR OR DEPUTY DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE FEDERAL AND/OR STATE FUNDING AGREEMENTS THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 11. Resolution Adopting the Disadvantaged Business RESOLUTION NO. 10793 — Enterprise Program and Annual Overall Goal For RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2000/01 (PW) — File 232 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND ANNUAL OVERALL GOAL FOR 2000/2001 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro (from Minutes of 1/22/2001 only, due to disqualification/absence from meetine.) SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 12. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RICHARD HAMILTON, FIREFIGHTER, FOR ASSISTING TWO CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL OFFICERS IN THE APPREHENSION OF A SUSPECT (CM) — FILE 102 x 9-3-31 For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Boro reported that Firefighter Hamilton assisted two Highway Patrol Officers who were in need of assistance and read a portion of the Resolution: "On January 21, 2001,Officer Hamilton was driving along Highway 101 and in the process noticed two California Highway Patrol Officers in need of assistance on the side of the highway. He helped the two officers wrestle the suspect to the ground, allowing them to handcuff and arrest the suspect. He displayed, on his own initiative, quite a bit of bravery and courage." Mayor Boro thanked firefighter Hamilton, stating the City was very thankful and proud of him and the Resolution was to commend him for his great work. Firefighter Hamilton expressed his thanks and appreciation and accepted the Resolution on behalf of his fellow firefighters in San Rafael, stating each and every one of whom are heroes. 13. INTRODUCTION OF JOE NATION, ASSEMBLYMEMBER — FILE 116 Assemblymember Nation stated he would give a brief update on events since his 105 days as a representative in Sacramento, and introduced Judi Josephs, District Director, stating if there were questions and he was not available, Ms. Josephs would be a good contact and could be reached at telephone No. 479-4920. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 4 Assemblymember Nation stated the dominant issue being worked on in Sacramento by him presently is Electricity. He noted the blackouts today in San Rafael and reported that unfortunately, the state had spent half of its surplus buying power, approximately $4 -billion to date, with no end in sight. The Governor requested the authority to cut a deal between the power generators, the utilities and all involved and Assemblymember Nation stated he is hopeful something will come forward fairly quickly to stem the bleeding from the state treasury. Work is being done on the supply, demand and market reform sides; he noted he had introduced a bill which would establish a tiered rate structure, comparable to that at the Marin Water District, which went through Committee last week and is anticipated to get through the Floor, being one of the top five bills on the Assembly side. Regarding supply, Assemblymember Nation reported that people would be encouraged, through tax credits, to develop alternatives. He stated that the best case scenario for shortages this summer is that power will be approximately 12% short, with 18% being the worst case scenario. He noted that the U.S. Department of Energy estimated there could be between 20 and 300 hours of blackouts in California this summer. His message was, therefore, conservation by everyone. Regarding Education, Assemblymember Nation stated he has been requested to expand the existing College Savings Account in California and had several bills to deal with Wetlands and Watershed protection. He reported he had been named Chair of a North Bay Committee on Housing and Transportation, and expected to have a hearing on that issue for that Committee in Marin in July and would appreciate input. Assemblymember Nation stated he appreciated the chance to address the City Council and would be happy to return at a more convenient time, adding he would not go to Petaluma prior to coming next time. Mayor Boro noted he was aware of the time consumption on the energy issue and expressed appreciation that Assemblymember Nation was working on the issue of Housing and Transportation. Mayor Boro stated he would provide him with the results of a poll conducted in San Rafael of 400 voters on these two issues, indicating these issues could not be solved directly but everything possible would be done by the City to address them. Assemblymember Nation stated he looked forward to the City's active participation in that select committee's operations. PUBLIC HEARING: 14. Public Hearing Re: 397-400 SMITH RANCH ROAD (SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT) - CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR A REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 110 ACRES FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -WETLAND OVERLAY TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -WETLAND OVERLAY (PD -WO TO PD -WO DISTRICT); A MASTER USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE AIRPORT IN ADDITION TO NON -AVIATION USES; AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 40 NEW AIRPLANE HANGARS, TWO MODULAR HOMES FOR A CARETAKER AND SECURITY GUARD, A MODIFIED ENTRY WITH A PARKING LOT, NEW LANDSCAPING AND A NEW 2,450 SQUARE FOOT NON -AVIATION BUILDING; APNS: 155-230-10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15; SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT LLC, OWNER/APPLICANT; FILE NO.: ZC 00-15, UP 99-9 & ED 98-59 (CD) — FILE 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 x 12-12 Dean Parsons, Senior Planner, stated that as part of the application, the applicant was not proposing any increase to the 100 based aircraft which were permitted in 1992, nor are they proposing any modification to the non -aviation uses of the property, which were permitted to be located on site in 1987 and 1992; therefore, no intensification of those uses is proposed. Mr. Parsons stated it is proposed to demolish a few dilapidated buildings which are used for non -aviation uses, replacing them with the same square footage. Uses for the non -aviation buildings include: contractor storage yards, tree service, pavement striping contractor, roofing contractor and greenhouse contractor. Mr. Parsons reported staff had determined that the proposed improvements to the airport would not have any intensification at the site for the following reasons: • The existing "tie downs" would be replaced with airplane hangars; • No increase in based aircraft over what was previously allowed; • Most of the new hangars are comparable in size to the existing hangars; therefore, no increase in the size of planes is anticipated; • No intensification of non -aviation uses. In addition, Mr. Parsons did not predict any upsurge in noise or traffic associated with the uses, because of SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 5 no increase in non -aviation uses or size of planes. The airport would remain private and the runways are so designated. Mr. Parsons reported that the Planning Commission, at their February 13, 2001 public hearing, requested staff to review and analyze noise impacts to surrounding neighbors, particularly Contempo Marin. Some of the concerns of neighbors at Contempo Marin are that there is noise between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 a.m. The Planning Commission requested staff evaluate flight restrictions and departures in the early morning hours and to assess the impacts to the airport operation. Mr. Parsons stated staff did consider possible restrictions and concluded that most private airports are located in rural areas with no flight restrictions; public airports having a large number of departures, both small planes and jet aircraft, typically have flight restrictions, commonly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. It was staff's understanding, noted Mr. Parsons, that most of the morning noise is associated with what is termed "run ups" — warming up an airplane before takeoff - and they recommend that rather than restricting hours of operation, there could be a requirement that the "run ups" take place further away from the airplane hangers and Contempo Marin, which should help. He stated that at the one and two year Use Permit review process this could be evaluated for effectiveness and should it be found not to be working, then additional restrictions could be imposed on hours of departure. Mr. Parsons noted for that reason, staff was recommending a designated run up area on the taxiway which could be used , in combination with the east end by the Bay, for warming up, which is quite a distance from most residences in the neighborhood. In conclusion, Mr. Parsons stated that the Planning Commission and staff were recommending approval of the proposed project, adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, proposed rezoning, Master Use Permit and Design Review Permit and he would be happy to answer questions. Mayor Boro clarified with Mr. Parsons that staff was recommending run ups for the entire day be carried out at this designated location, not just those between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Councilmember Heller inquired about the frequency and number of planes taking off in this 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. time frame. Mr. Parsons stated it was his understanding there would be approximately one per day in summer and two per week in winter. He noted it is not a common practice for airplanes to depart after 10:00 p.m. Councilmember Phillips noted one of the letters received made reference to the run up area, suggesting the installation of a sound barrier around this area, and he inquired as to its feasibility or whether it had been considered. Mr. Parsons stated that staff did not consider it would necessarily help the problem, rather a barrier could possibly deflect the noise, resulting in disturbing more people further away. An in-depth noise study had not been conducted as it was considered best to begin with pushing the run ups further away from the neighborhood, and should this not work, other alternatives could be considered. Councilmember Phillips inquired if such sound barriers were employed at other private airports. Mr. Parsons stated staff was not aware of any; he had seen them at larger public airports where there is jet aircraft traffic. Councilmember Phillips inquired if this possibility had been discussed with the owner. Mr. Parsons stated it had been discussed and the reaction was that if tonight's proposal was not accepted, other noise mitigation alternatives could be considered, including a barrier. Mayor Boro confirmed with Mr. Parsons that the run up was not an issue when the proposal went before the Planning Commission; the issue of late night and early morning takeoffs was raised by the neighbors and to mitigate this, and the noise for the entire day, a designated run up area was being recommended. This would not be confined to early morning and late night takeoffs, instead all planes would come under this restriction. Mr. Parsons stated this was correct. In addition, staff was recommending the ACE Aviation operations be restricted in their hours for run ups of planes being serviced, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., as opposed to before 8:00 a.m. or late in the evening. Regarding the Draft Resolution for the Master Use Permit, Councilmember Cohen referred to Page 4, paragraph 4, which states "This Master Use Permit does not have an expiration date". He stated that reading the history he could understand why a long term approach would be reasonable, given the investment, but he was not entirely comfortable with the wording of the paragraph, as it appeared to say that the Master Use Permit would be reviewed for compliance with the conditions of approval, one and two years after the Use Permit is approved and could be modified or revoked if those conditions are found to be violated; then it is silent. Councilmember Cohen inquired what the subsequent process would be. Responding, City Attorney Gary Ragghianti stated these permits run with the land and while there are some which are finite in their duration, most he had seen are not. However, it is not uncommon to revisit them in a certain period of time and the scope of remedies available are: SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 6 • Further modification, based on public testimony; • Revocation of the Use Permit, subject to Public Hearing. Mr. Ragghianti stated these are the two options the City has, either modify or revoke, and modification includes imposition of additional conditions which the evidence suggests are necessary in order to make the findings to continue the use. Councilmember Cohen stated he was concerned with the language in the Draft Resolution to the effect that this will be reviewed one and two years from now, and at that time changes could be made, up to and including revoking the Use Permit if there has been a violation of the Conditions of Approval, and wondered whether it would be more appropriate to include the language "there would be subsequent reviews for compliance with the Conditions of Approval". City Attorney Ragghianti stated the City Council never loses jurisdiction to conduct a hearing on revocation of any Use Permit when such a request is brought forward, ten years, even 25 years after the use permit is granted; however, there are some types of uses which the Council in the past has wished to revisit, knowing this at issuance, within a certain finite period of time, because of unique circumstances involved in the neighborhood or in the use involved. This, he stated, is probably one such circumstance; therefore, Council had the option to revisit it every two years or every three years, or at the end of the first year and then again two years later and not again unless something happened. Should something occur, he was confident staff would bring this to Council's attention. Community Development Director Bob Brown added, that for the sake of clarity, the section in the zoning ordinance relating to provisions for revocation of use permits could be cited, which allows the City to call up the Use Permit at any time due to violation of conditions or public nuisance. Councilmember Cohen stated the Draft Resolution indicates that for one and two years a compliance review would be carried out and as part of that review modifications could be made; however, beyond that point he inquired if the Planning Commission and/or the Council could modify the Use Permit for any reason. Responding, Mr. Brown stated it could be modified either for violation of conditions or any form of public nuisance. City Attorney Ragghianti stated that if the use evolves into a public nuisance or if complaints are made and a revocation hearing is conducted, the Use Permit may be modified or revoked, but it may not be changed or conditions added in the absence of these two grounds. Councilmember Cohen stated that the language in the draft Resolution was not entirely clear in that it could be argued that the review applies to one and two year hearings and not subsequently. City Attorney Ragghianti stated it was not intended to so imply and agreed with Councilmember Cohen that the right to revoke the Use Permit on evidence in the records exists forever. Councilmember Cohen stated he would prefer to add language to the effect that beyond that one and two-year review, in the event of violations, the opportunity would exist to at least review the Use Permit. Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened and invited the applicant to address the Council and subsequently hear from members of the public. Robert Levy, Attorney representing the Applicant, commented that the Planning Commission meeting was lengthy and in reviewing the material in the staff report he felt there was nothing new he needed to address. He stated Mr. Larry Paul, the project architect, would give a brief presentation. Mr. Levy emphasized the fact that there was no intensification of the use; however, the use needs to be economically sustainable and aesthetically improved, not only for the users but for the community, and the ongoing long term battle of how this property might be used, has been an economic impediment to its improvement and economic sustainability. It is, however, an airport and people who reside around airports do not particularly like living around them. He did not fault them for that and there is the argument of who was there first, but the reality is the City of San Rafael designated it as an airport. Mr. Levy stated the applicant was prepared to make it a better airport, with no intensification of use. The only item left unresolved at the conclusion of the Planning Commission meeting was the issue of whether or not there should be some restriction on night use for takeoffs, and at that time Mr. Levy suggested that as there had only been a couple of complaints over the years, there was no factual predicate for any kind of restriction. Some analyses had been carried out since then, and Mr. Levy felt it was still an open issue in the sense that there did not seem to be a sustainable reason to impose any restriction on use and as reflected from the letters submitted from the users, it would be an unfair restraint for them. He stated that from the applicant's perspective, they needed to satisfy their tenants. Mr. Levy noted that some people do need to leave early and late sometimes, be it for weather, business or any number of reasons; therefore, a restraint did not seem justified, particularly when there is a two year review period to enable the City to evaluate whether or not it is an issue. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 7 Mr. Levy, commenting on Councilmember's Cohen's concerns, emphasized Mr. Ragghianti's response in that it was clear that the applicant would have no objection whatsoever to including in the Resolution the language suggested by Mr. Ragghianti, but he emphasized there was justification for the present language in that the applicant was attempting to better the facility, and in order to do so it was essential to secure longevity for financing, business leaseholds and airport leaseholds and no one wanted to participate in a project if the use was under review every one, two, three or five years. If the use is a permanent use and the City has enforcement powers, then both sides can accomplish their objectives. Mr. Levy stated there was a conscientious effort on the part of the applicant to meet with area residents to attempt a compromise. He noted there were a lot of conditions, including some which affect adjacent property and some which would cost considerably more than the applicant wished to spend, instancing the bridge, which they objected to, but currently they are prepared to accept the conditions imposed in order to proceed. Larry Paul, Project Architect for the San Rafael Airport, reiterated that basically the project was to renovate and remodel an existing airport which is laboring under some severe restrictions in the covenants that dictate the uses which can and cannot be employed. He reported they have attempted to enhance the property to bring all the structures up to code, reorganize the uses to accommodate the small commercial use and the aviation use, which predominates. Mr. Paul stated that the property aesthetics were important and this was the reason for introducing the entryway in order to create a sense of place. Mr. Paul stated there are approximately 100 planes on site presently, 75 in hangars and 25 in tie downs, and the proposal was to tear down 15 of the dilapidated wooden hangars, replacing them with new ones and replacing the tie downs with 25 new hangars, similar to the existing hangars in terms of size, materials and aesthetics. The airport would, therefore, be more uniform and organized. Most of the hangars would be in -fill, reported Mr. Paul. There is one new isle close to the runway area, and the new structures are either to replace the tie downs or some existing hangars. Several dilapidated commercial buildings will be demolished to be replaced with one single commercial building with the same exterior siding as the airport hangars, making for a more cohesive appearance. The entryway would provide some additional parking and landscaping; fencing would be installed to provide security for the uses. Some substandard residences on the property would be replaced, one for a caretaker, out near the taxiway, and the other for a security guard at the entrance to the airport. Mr. Paul stated that the entry would contain special stamped asphalt concrete paving, some native landscaping, low level lighting, directory signage and card key access to the airport itself. Some landscaping is planned at the location of the new buildings facing the creek to provide some softening of the buildings to the homes along Santa Venetia creek area. Addressing the run ups, Mr. Paul stated that the idea of putting the run ups towards the taxiway area was a good one as sound diminishes by the inverse square law in that to double the distance from the sound generator the sound itself diminishes by four times. The run up area is located twice as far away from the Contempo Marin area and the residences along the property line; therefore, the sound should be significantly diminished. The landscaping and new buildings would also help. Councilmember Phillips inquired if the change in facilities would accommodate larger aircraft and therefore, present more sound issues, while dealing with the same number of aircraft. Mr. Paul stated he could not answer that exactly other than to say they are attempting to accommodate the existing airport patronage and it could be possible that some of the tenants would purchase different airplanes, or some pilots could move on to be replaced by other tenants; therefore it would be difficult to predict. Councilmember Phillips stated he would inquire if the issue was covered by the Planning Commission as somehow this evening he would like to have this question answered. Bob DeYoung stated he was the instigator and noted there had been aviation from this area since 1928 when the runway was in Santa Venetia. The runway was moved to Smith Ranch, where he had resided since the late 1940s; he now lived in Novato but is at Smith Ranch daily. Giving a little history, Mr. DeYoung reported that he and two others built the airport, with the assistance of the Smith Brothers, and they had always aimed to maintain a good relationship with all the neighbors. Before Contempo Marin was in existence, flights departed over this area and after Contempo was constructed the flight pattern was changed to the Railroad track and out to Highway 101, which relieved a lot of the pressure over these homes. Mr. DeYoung commented that he and George Silveira took care of any problems which arose with the neighbors, with whom they had a good relationship for 45 years. He stated they also took care of the levees, without which Contempo Marin would be under water and as long as the airport is there and the funds are available to maintain them, Contempo Marin would be safe. Mr. DeYoung stated they ran a SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 8 good airport and he takes care of it. Brian Pawn, resident of Marin Lagoon, stated he had no complaints with the airport as it is currently operated, noting that the tenants do an excellent job of trying to keep the community happy with regard to keeping the noise under control. His concern was with maintaining his home investment, as every homeowner there sought to do. He noted that Mr. Shekou sold a portion of his land to the developer who built Marin Lagoon, as well as the development for Autodesk, etc.; therefore, much of the development surrounding his airport is in existence as a result of Mr. Shekou profiting from the sale of excess properties. Mr. Pawn stated that in 1994, President Clinton signed a bill which will change aviation as it is known presently; he himself flies, based out of Gnoss, an aircraft design from the 1960s, and most people representing the tenants this evening represent 1960s technology. He noted the advances currently seen in general aviation and the technologies which will appear in two to four years have not been seen on a general aviation basis. He stated it was a little naive from a business point of view to understand the owner putting a tremendous amount of money into infrastructure and not expecting to get more revenue as a result. Mr. Pawn stated that people who represent the tenants present this evening and other people at Smith Ranch would be faced with a) having the rents go up or b) being replaced by people who would be investing in newer technologies, costing into the multi -millions of dollars. Mr. Pawn reported that the new agenda is to have fractional ownership interests in new technology planes costing up to $5 -million, whereby most people would be purchasing one-tenth of an airplane. He stated that where presently a Cessna 182 or Beechcraft Bonanza is flown by an individual owner, the new technologies, be they the airplane or the avionics within, are so prohibitively expensive that people realize fractional ownership interest is the way to go. Therefore, while there may be 100 planes presently, more use would be seen from those planes in the future as they would have greater technologies and capabilities, noting that the present one flight per night is only because it is a Cessna 182 or Beechcraft Bonanza. Mr. Pawn stated that as soon as there are better technologies and greater capabilities this would have to be faced. Mr. Pawn felt it was important to bring this issue to Council's attention at this time; he was aware there were people present who would like to have an unfettered design; however, he lived there and required an unfettered home with the assurance that the technology in place in three years would not indicate a jet screaming over his house. He stated he had no complaints with the general aviation community presently and complimented them on the excellent job they had done, but would like to see limitations with regard to decibels. He commented that piston powered aircraft would be fine, but no turban or jet powered aircraft, and by putting a limitation on future growth in place, at least the developer would know he could not secure revenue from these kinds of planes in the future. Councilmember Phillips agreed that there would be changes in technologies and was curious as to whether these changes could possibly produce quieter aircraft, jet or otherwise, and if there is concern in connection with noise, even with more frequency of flights, could it perhaps be less obnoxious. Responding, Mr. Pawn stated that the current noise level did not bother him or the other neighbors and felt Council should not single out a certain type of technology for the future; rather, the responsible method would be to decide on a decibel level which would be an appropriate guideline for future technologies and acceptance at the airport. Councilmember Heller inquired if jets require longer runways. Mr. Pawn responded in the affirmative; however, he stated at some point there could be an extension or widening at the airport, and not being in a position to anticipate what jet technology could be ten years from now, he felt a decibel level would be best. Ken King, pilot, in objecting to the expansion of the airport stated the insinuation that it is not being expanded belied credibility. He noted new hangars were being constructed, there would be bigger planes, producing more noise, and people who want their investment protected would be able to move in. Noise being one safety issue, Mr. King questioned what was being done with regard to others, specifically an accident at the airport. He noted that from what he had read there was no provision whatsoever to deal with a gasoline fire. He stated that one plane slamming into one hanger would destroy most of the airport, mainly because parked planes are full of fuel and noted there was nothing in the mitigation which dealt with 100 parked planes filled with fuel. Another safety issue, he noted, was hazardous waste and he inquired if a survey of the land had been done, adding if there is hazardous waste it would most likely be ground water contamination. He reported that some of his neighbors drink well water which is not very conducive to health. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 9 Mr. King noted that the obvious benefactor from the expansion of the airport was the builder, with the residents and people of San Rafael paying with noise and the possibility of an accident because of increased traffic. He instanced a neighborhood of approximately 1,000 people having to accommodate one owner and felt this produced no balance. He noted the owner would increase his profits but the neighbors' real estate values would decrease by a certain percentage; therefore, the neighbors would lose out more. Addressing aesthetics, Mr. King stated the view from Santa Venetia was atrocious and was more like the industrial area of Daly City than Marin, and would worsen. He foresaw expansion at the airport, more traffic, a disruption of communities around the airport and an applicant with a terrible track record on that particular property. He stated it was full of no permits, hazardous spills and no use permit after 1998. Regarding operating schedules, Mr. King stated every airport has its own responsibility for time of operation, and usually relied on citizen participation. He instanced Orange County's John Wayne airport, which is not permitted to begin operation until 8:00 a.m. and the last flight out has to be completed before 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. because of the nuisance value. He commented that if major airports restrict their times he did not understand why letting this airport run for 24 hours should even be considered. Mr. King stated he lives approximately one mile from the airport and from his deck can tell who is taking off, which is a fact of life, but to expand operations is not acceptable. Referring to the staff report, Mr. King noted a reference on restrictions to heavy planes, meaning the use was conditional on size, and wondered why this was dropped. A further reference called for a sound barrier on the west side of the airport and none on the east side; again, he wondered what the reason for this was. He also inquired if the applicant had hazardous waste permits presently and the monitoring status. At this point, Mayor Boro requested the speaker limit his comments to fact, not speculation or opinion. Mr. King apologized. Returning to the use, Mr. King stated that his interpretation was that corporate use could be available at the airport. Mayor Boro stated it was his understanding there was no regulation on who uses the airport. Mr. King stated he did not read it as a regulation. Regarding fly -ins, he stated this regulation has been in place for years but there were fly -ins and it was also known that business people wished to use the airport. Mr. King thanked the Council for listening and stated he would like answers from the Planning Commission. Mayor Boro stated he would receive them. Lissa Herschleb, Contempo Marin, east side resident, expressed thanks for handling the disruptive tenant of the two new mobile homes and noted there was a lot of litter which needed to be cleared. Addressing other issues, she noted that when the road was resurfaced in front of the mobile homes it was built up quite a bit; there is a PG&E access road with a major natural gas line running underneath across the creek and behind their houses. She stated that the road was built up such that should there be a break in the line, an emergency vehicle would bottom out. She stated this should be addressed as it could be a fire hazard in an earthquake. Regarding the new mobile homes to be built in the east end, she requested consideration be given to nighttime lighting. On the major issue, Ms. Herschleb stated she attended a meeting some years ago when the permits were up for review and felt there was agreement that the contractors in the business part of the airport, the east end, were not supposed to leave before 7:00 a.m. She noted some contractors with very large vehicles and some earthmoving equipment, starting very early in the morning, which affects the neighbors and she would like this addressed as it is extremely disruptive. John Harrington, member of Marin Lagoon Homeowners Association Board, stated they were in a flight path for the airport and endorsed the issues of decibel levels and what might happen with planes in the future. He noted that while it might be difficult to set a specific limit at this time, he would like the record to show that this was an issue of concern to the community, as it could be a basis for a re -hearing on the Use Permit, or at least a limitation for the future, should the noise level increase due to changes in aircraft. Secondly, Mr. Harrington requested a limitation on hours of operation, suggesting 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. Whitfield King, President, Contempo Marin Homeowners Association stated he had acquired a sound meter to keep track of the sounds made and would submit accurate readings signifying the extent of the noise from the airport. He urged putting standards in place and felt the idea of a limitation of decibels made good sense and would prohibit jets and turbo props. He hoped the airport would be kept operational as it could be of invaluable service to the community in the event of a disaster. He noted there was an SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 10 opinion that airforce airplanes could not land there but did not agree with this Monica Castin, Vendola Drive, referred to the hangars and commercial building and inquired as to their height. Responding, Mr. Parsons stated the commercial building would be 25 -feet and would need to be raised up to a minimum 7 -foot elevation to be above flood level, and the hangars are approximately 14 - feet. Responding to Ms. Castin's question on the height of the existing hangars, Mr. Parsons confirmed they were approximately the same height; however the new non -aviation building would be higher by 11 - feet. Responding to Ms. Castin's question on where the new run up area would be, Mr. Parsons stated the run up area would be where the taxiway intersects with the runway. Ms. Castin agreed there should be a decibel level on the airport. Jerry Frate, Contempo Marin Homeowners Association requested confirmation on whether San Rafael had a Noise Ordinance. Community Development Director Brown stated staff was in the process of revising the Noise Ordinance significantly. Mr. Frate inquired if a condition of approval could be inserted in the Use Permit to the effect that when this project is reviewed in one and two years, compliance with the noise ordinance could also be reviewed. Mayor Boro stated that this would automatically happen as part of the review process if it was an issue with the neighbors. Mr. Frate wondered why the neighbors were always the pseudo vigilante enforcement agency. Mayor Boro stated that when conducting a review, part of the process would entail staff going out and talking to the surrounding neighborhood, within a specified time, to ascertain whether there were issues which needed to be addressed. After that period Mayor Boro assumed, on a complaint basis, a review would be held. Mr. Frate recommended a decibel review condition, tied to the ordinance, with the airport producing the fixes. Regarding Mr. Frate's question on gasoline and oil drainage, filtering and monitoring, Mayor Boro stated this would be answered by staff when replying to the hazardous waste question. On the issue of a sound wall around the mechanics area, Mr. Frate stated that this proposal was replaced with positioning sheet rock inside the aviation hangars; however, his understanding was that airplanes with engines running are not worked on inside a hangar; therefore, he would like to see some proposal for a sound wall around where airplanes are maintained. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Frate stated he was aware the owner was in possession of the property which extends to the bridge, and wondered why the landscaping was ending at this particular property line, as it seemed more organic to continue it through to the bridge and the entrance to the property. Sharon Bail, Captains Cove stated her biggest concern was the noise made by people going to and from the airport; her bedroom was approximately 100 feet from the bridge and the gate. She was curious as to why the gate was on the bridge instead of at the airport. Ms. Bail stated people drive up to the gate when it is closed at night, causing a lot of noise and occasionally blowing their horn, even at 1:30 and 2:00 a.m. until someone opens it. Taking this into consideration, she inquired if the gate could be removed. She also remarked on the speed of exiting drivers. Paul Claborns, Santa Venetia, stated this was a plan for approval on a site of 110 acres but mostly addressed the hangars and business area. He stated he would like to speak specifically to the area inside the dike, the grazing area and along both creeks. His concern was that if nothing was explicitly stated and required there would be encroachment and neglect. He fully supported the comments of the Marin Audubon Society and the Marin Conservation League addressing the need to protect this area and requested that the qualified biologist, mentioned under Item #15 of the Conditions of Approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit, has a time frame to conduct that survey, which he suggested should be 90 days, or at least before the area is turned over. He also requested that the wetland areas inside the dike be protected and the trees planted within there be removed. Allen Cohen, Santa Venetia, stated he would like to draw attention to the last paragraph of the letter from Marin Conservation League, which states "the changes to the airport lands over recent years, and the changes which will occur if the current plan is approved, has and will continue to result in considerable impact to the Gallinas Creek Area habitat. Due to the impact for intensive uses for most of this site as buildings and runway, we recommend as mitigation measures that the eastern and western portions of the site be permanently set aside as habitat. Protected from built uses, and restored by a master plan to native grasses or wetland vegetation, seasonal wetland could be re-established without breaching the levee, and help to lessen the negative impacts of this project." Mr. Cohen depicted on the map a field to be used for grazing and suggested a review be made of the recommendation of the Marin Conservation League, which he would like to see included as a possible mitigation. Mr. Cohen reported he had stated at two previous meetings that years ago there were frogs SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 11 every winter in that field, which do not exist presently, but lots of wildlife could exist if the field were not disked twice per year, in his opinion, for no known reason. Anna Minton, Terra Linda, stated she lived further from the airport than those who had spoken and had big issues with the number of flights flying over her house. Her concern was that when she called to complain she generally got the response that it is probably from Gnoss Field and wondered what the flight path restrictions are, as it was her understanding planes were not supposed to fly over residential areas in Terra Linda. She inquired how this was to be enforced as the idea of video cameras did not seem to address the problem. She noted that when she called to complain she was informed that unless she could actually read the numbers on the airplanes there was nothing she could complain about. She referenced page 5 of Attachment 3 which stated that pilots violating the flight path restrictions on more than two occasions would have their leases terminated and inquired how these flight restrictions would be enforced. Bill Laughter, Vendola Drive, stated he had lived right next to the runway for over 30 years and distributed a list to the Council of five families, who collectively, have lived next to Smith Ranch for over 213 years. He reported having spoken with his immediate neighbors who basically are people who bought their houses new and have lived next to Smith Ranch Airport for 46 '/2 years. He noted a lot of people living a mile or two miles from the airport had complained; however, he had lived next to the runway for a lot of years without noticing a noise problem, day or night. He stated he was present to support the airport and pointed out that he and his neighbors who had been there for decades did not have a problem with the airport noise. Judy Laughter, Vendola Drive, stated she did not have a problem living next to the airport, and in fact recommended living on the same side of Vendola as she to enjoy the aircraft. She commended Joe Shekou for wanting to improve the shabby look of the airport, which would instill pride in the pilots and business people who work from there. Audrey Shimkas, Marin Lagoon, stated she believed the controversy over the airport expansion was not so much concerning the construction of new buildings as the operation of the field. She agreed the capital improvements to the airport would likely result in a state of the art modern facility which would fetch higher rents and in turn attract clients needing to operate their expensive planes more aggressively, such as for charter and commercial flights. She noted 100 planes flown occasionally is substantially different from 100 planes flown aggressively. Regarding the operation of the airport, she noted there were no enforcement powers other than to wait a year or two years to come back to evaluate its progress. She stated that according to Mr. Parsons there are no flight logs, which means there is no measurement of the non - permitted uses, such as charter flights, student flight training or fly -ins; therefore in two years from now if there are 50 flights per day, there will be no data on whether this is a significant increase. Ms. Shimkas had four suggestions: 1) Limit decibel level; 2) Log the number of flights per day and per month for future comparison; 3) Maintain mandatory flight logs to ensure enforcement of the existing non -permitted uses; 4) An environmental impact report on record. Dr. Dwight Schinfeld, stated he was a tenant at Smith Ranch Airport and enjoyed the privilege of being there. He noted it did not seem in anyone's interest to have electrical facilities, freeways or airports in their backyard, but yet everyone seems to require easy access to communication, transportation and power and inquired where these would be located if not near residences. He stated Mr. Shekou is a businessman trying to run a business to benefit the people of the city and county and, therefore, must be allowed to capitalize on his investment; however, the residents in the trailer park now expect an increased return on their investment by removing the airport. Those using the airport are typically college-educated individuals who bring an increased quality of lifestyle to the community simply by being here; therefore, the airport is a valuable asset. He noted that in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles radar equipment had been purchased to monitor the flight paths of aircraft leaving LAX, with the intention of forming a strong user group to re-route these aircraft, which was another example of not in my backyard. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing and asked Mr. Parsons to go through the various issues raised. First, however, Mayor Boro asked City Attorney Ragghianti to comment on the zoning of the airport and events leading to the airport use, to enable the public to understand the history. Mr. Ragghianti stated he believed it went back to the early 1970s or late 1960s, and is detailed in the staff report. Mayor Boro requested Mr. Ragghianti make reference specifically to the lawsuit of the City SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 12 and the settlement reached, to ensure people understood Mr. Ragghianti stated there was litigation in which Mr. Levy represented Mr. Shekou and Mr. Ragghianti represented the City. There was a declaration of restrictions on this particular property and the County and City of San Rafael agreed that these restrictions would burden the property when other portions of lands owned by Mr. Shekou, and perhaps others, were developed. He stated there was litigation concerning these restrictions and their validity and they were upheld. The restrictions included use of the premises or the lands for airport and airport related uses, amongst others, and are still in existence; the General Plan makes note of them. Mr. Ragghianti stated one of those uses has always been airport and airport related uses. Mr. Parsons addressed the questions raised in the public hearing. On the question of new technology jet aircraft using the site, Mr. Parsons stated that currently the runway is not long enough for jet aircraft; however, in the event technology changes making landing possible, to avoid the problem an appropriate condition could be added requiring an amendment to the use permit. Regarding fire security, condition of approval #48 states that the Fire Department would require fire hydrants at 300 -foot intervals on site and the applicant would have to provide adequate water pressure and supply to accommodate them. On the hazardous waste survey issue, Mr. Parsons stated there are conditions of approval which do require that within 30 days of approval of the project a complete survey is conducted with remediation measures carried out within 60 days, and prior to issuance of any grading building permits. He stated the applicant could comment further on what the status of that survey is. Regarding visual impacts, there is a condition of approval requiring landscape screening for the new hangars for the Contempo Marin side, as well as the Santa Venetia side, which has to go to the Design Review Board for review and approval. With regard to the heavy airplane issue, Mr. Parsons stated staff was not sure why past staff had that condition. They had researched a definition for heavy airplane, without finding one and are therefore, not sure what that alluded to. The conditions of approval as proposed by staff do not preclude corporate use of the airport On the issue of the resurfaced road and the comment that it was built up on a natural gas pipeline, Mr. Parsons was not aware of the section in question. He noted a new sanitary sewer line had recently been installed and deferred to the applicant to discuss the exact location. He stated the Fire Department did not have any concerns about that or impose any additional restrictions on it. On the issue of lighting, Mr. Parsons stated the lighting and its impact to surrounding neighbors would need to be reviewed and approved by the Design review Board. There are restrictions on non -aviation uses to the extent that they cannot operate outside of the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Non-compliance subjects the use permit to revocation and any complaints about it should be directed to city staff. Mr. Parsons reported that a noise ordinance is being drafted presently which perhaps will attempt to address noise at the airport, as presently he sensed it exempted the airport. The Council may wish to consider decibel limitations and if so, at the applicant's expense, it would be necessary to hire a noise consultant to carry out periodic readings at the airport, which would be controlled by staff. Regarding the bridge and the noise associated with the late night entry at the gate, Mr. Parsons stated that staff was recommending the gate be moved on site to the airport to avoid further nuisance to the neighbors, making it unnecessary to stop at the bridge. The re -surfacing of the bridge should also help with noise abatement. With regard to the grazing and fencing on site, Mr. Parsons stated staff is recommending that a qualified biologist review the best location for fencing to keep animals and livestock out of the wetland areas, and would be required before grading or a building permit. He noted that so far the removal of the eucalyptus trees planted around the perimeter had not been recommended but a requirement could be added to the effect that the biologist evaluate the impacts from this. He stated there was a concern from the Marin Conservation League that possibly in the future raptors could be in the trees, which could potentially impact the habitat in the wetland areas. Mr. Parsons stated that the flight path, which is approved by the State of California, presently basically limits aircraft to going out over the bay or southwest along McInnis Parkway. After that it does not limit the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 13 flight path of planes, instancing Terra Linda as having no prohibitions. Staff noted there are airplanes in the Terra Linda area associated with this airport; however, other planes going to Gnoss and other airports in the Bay Area also fly in those neighborhoods, but it is not known for sure which are which. Mr. Parsons stated that there had never been any flight logs maintained or cataloging of the number of flights per day and month at the airport. This would require a fixed base operator, which ACE Aviation somewhat serves as presently. These requirements had not been in place previously because the airport had not been used at a very intense rate. He stated it was possible to maintain a flight log, hiring an employee to do this, or alternatively, have an existing employee available at all times; however, the applicant possibly had another idea, perhaps utilizing a card key program. Regarding the sound wall in the Ace Aviation Repair Hangar area, Mr. Parsons stated this could certainly be added as a condition of approval. Although very close together presently, a sound wall could be erected in between the buildings adjacent to Contempo Marin. There is a condition for sound attenuation inside those hangars but a wall could be added. With regard to landscaping on the adjacent properties where two modular homes are located, Mr. Parsons stated that these are separate parcels from the airport; the City cannot impose conditions on these even though they are still owned by Mr. Shekou. There were conditions of approval for those properties to require landscape installation, which has been carried out but has not yet reached maturity. Mayor Boro returned to the question of why there were no sound walls towards Santa Venetia and Mr. Parsons stated there had been no complaints concerning noise impacting this area, partly because of the distance, which is why they are recommending the run up be moved further from Contempo. Mr. Brown stated that sound walls are only effective in close proximity to the noise source, which is the reason for having them near the hangars where the sound occurs. On the decibel issue, Councilmember Phillips inquired if there was some practical way to monitor and regulate this to satisfy the concerns about heavy aircraft, those which might generate a greater amount of sound than that currently experienced. Community Development Director Brown stated it was possible and noted that noise assessment had not been taken to date, and would probably have to be taken from receptor sites which are pre -determined in the adjacent neighborhoods. He stated assessments would need to be instigated now to establish a reasonable restriction. In terms of ongoing monitoring, he stated this was possible in conjunction with the two annual reviews. Mr. Brown instanced the Dominican Events Management Plan (not in terms of noise) where it is required they pay for periodic monitoring of parking; the City controls the contracts, choosing how and when the monitoring is done and incorporating the findings in the periodic reviews of the Events Management Plan. He stated this would most likely be the mechanism and there would be a restriction long term, in that if there were complaints it would be possible to measure and monitor. Councilmember Phillips wondered if there was a standard for testing aircraft for decibel output on its design. Mr. Brown stated he was not aware of the kinds of variations among aircraft based on how they are maintained. He felt the easiest way would be to take the maximum measurements from the site over a period of time , which would then become the baseline. Councilmember Phillips stated this would have to be attributed to a particular aircraft and would not be a standard based on time or frequency but just on a particular aircraft. Although removed, he instanced the monitoring of traffic for St. Mark's school, whereby the number of trips were restricted, and wondered if this was in some ways similar. Councilmember Phillips stated he was not convinced that jet aircraft would necessarily be louder in the future and it seemed like a standard which everyone could agree upon and therefore, would be easy to institute. Mr. Brown stated he was not familiar enough with measurements of noise of airplanes but this could be investigated. If the issue is to be reviewed in one and two years, Councilmember Phillips inquired if there was a way to establish what the decibel output is now for comparison with what it might be in a couple of years. Mr. Brown stated this could be done and as mentioned by City Attorney Ragghianti, the Noise Ordinance, the public review of which would be in approximately 4 months, would be another opportunity to potentially set a level, which after one year could be reaffirmed. Councilmember Phillips inquired if this was something Mr. Brown would recommend. Mr. Brown stated he had no problem with doing this and felt it would make sense to at least establish a baseline now. Councilmember Phillips inquired if this would be part of the Resolution this evening or an implied understanding based on conversation. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 14 Mr. Brown stated that if this was the Council's direction it should be made a condition of approval, thereby having the applicant pay for it and establishing the requirements. Councilmember Phillips stated that for the Council's information, should there be rebuttal or further discussion, this struck him as not unreasonable. It is currently operating at a given level which apparently is acceptable, and should the level be exceeded there would be an objective measure from which to comment in one and two years. Mayor Boro stated that the State of California has acceptable decibel levels for motor vehicles, and instanced homes along Highway 101 where there is an acceptable decibel level which if exceeded, has to be mitigated with sound walls. He stated that firstly, it should be ascertained what an acceptable level is and whether or not it exists at present. Mayor Boro felt this should be ascertained before establishing a baseline, as presently it could be well below or above what is acceptable. Councilmember Phillips stated this was a good idea. Community Development Director Brown stated staff was not aware of a standard but would investigate. Councilmember Phillips stated that perhaps it should not be a condition this evening but at least a consideration in a year from now based on public input. With no knowledge of how extensive a project sound sampling would be, Councilmember Cohen suggested that if it is not too significant, it should be conducted now in order to have some kind of benchmark. This was not to say that whatever the current measurement is should be the standard but at least there would be a measurement. Councilmember Cohen felt that requesting this information be gathered was reasonable and could be included in tonight's deliberation without necessarily concluding that therefore, the resultant measurements immediately become the standard, or that we are necessarily going to impose a specific standard. He felt it would be helpful to know what the noise levels are; clearly some people would prefer the airport went away and there was no noise, but there was also a fair amount of testimony from people indicating their acceptance of it; however, there was concern that this represents an expansion, not in size or number of aircraft, but of the use, which would result in bigger impacts down the road. A benchmark today would provide a reference point to be considered in future deliberations. Councilmember Cohen stated that a measurement of actual noise over a period of time is a more reasonable approach than trying to develop and maintain a catalog of the noise output of individual aircraft. He felt the bottom line was the impact on the neighbors which was what we should be concerned with regulating. The type of aircraft was not an issue as long as it did not exceed whatever standard is concluded to be reasonable. Mayor Boro agreed with this but was concerned about taking a measurement now which perhaps, could become the standard for the future. He felt that standards should be determined and the issue addressed and incorporated in the Noise Ordinance review. Councilmember Cohen agreed with this but did not understand the argument against measuring whatever the noise parameters are today; measurements should be taken and known, prior to what some have alleged, is an expansion of the use of the airport. It could be specifically stated that this is not intended to be the standard for the future; merely a request that the applicant assumes the cost of the measurement of existing conditions. Mayor Boro stated that it would need to be very specifically stated as it was his belief that it would become the standard and he did not believe this would be a fair standard to establish; therefore, Councilmember Cohen's suggestion could proceed for academic purposes, with the specific understanding that the measurement not be used as the standard, as it may or may not be a fair or valid standard to set. Councilmember Cohen stated that perhaps it could be undertaken in two steps. Expanding, he stated that staff indicated there is work to be done on the noise ordinance, which does not now include or have reference to the airport. He recommended that we include in the conditions here that a measurement be taken to have at least a baseline existing condition, and that further we direct staff, as part of the review on the noise ordinance, to work on establishing what are appropriate standards for airport use in San Rafael, and since we only have one airport, we are talking about this use. He felt those two directions taken in conjunction, would make it pretty clear, in addition to our comments here, that we are not intending that the measurement we are taking would become the standard, rather a reference as to present noise levels. Councilmember Cohen stated he was satisfied with the staff's response and was impressed with the tracking of the questions. Regarding the request for an Environmental Impact Report, he stated this had been gone over before and adequately answered through the Planning Commission's review, and the staff report. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 15 On the issue of the background, Councilmember Cohen stated that if this application is not approved, with some adjustment and modification as the Council sees fit, the applicant has been placed into a classic "Catch 22" situation, in that we would say no, there is a restrictive covenant on this land which governs what it can be used for, and explicitly existing airport use is one of those. Councilmember Cohen stated It appeared to him that the applicant had accepted and acknowledged this and therefore, was going to make an investment to make this, within the existing numbers, an airport, clean up the buildings which are falling down and invest money in its use. Councilmember Cohen noted that if the applicant was planning to attempt to develop it in some other fashion it would make sense not to do that, but having accepted it is going to be an airport use, it is reasonable and appropriate for the community to invest in making it a decent airport. Councilmember Cohen stated private property rights still existed and he understood there was a need to balance the rights of the property owner and the rights of the community; there are some property rights here that are pretty severely restricted by the covenant, but what is proposed is entirely consistent and he did not see how in good conscience this effort could be denied. Councilmember Cohen felt it was appropriate to be sure of having the proper conditions and would like to include in them clarification to the language requested. He felt it should be apparent in the record that violations of the conditions allow for review of the Master Use Permit. He would defer on the specific language, but it needed to be addressed to include in the conditions a requirement that there be some measurement of existing noise conditions in order to have a frame of reference whereby, in the review of the noise ordinance, some discussion of airport standards could be included. Other than that, he was satisfied and would support the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Miller stated there were two issues: firstly, noise, which he felt was being dealt with adequately, agreeing there should be measurement of the present levels, and secondly, the number of prohibited flights, inquiring if this was being monitored. Community Development Director Brown deferred to the applicant regarding the practical requirements of keeping flight logs. Referring to the MCL (Marin Conservation League) letter regarding setting aside the eastern and western portions as habitat, Councilmember Heller inquired if Mr. Parsons discussed this. Mr. Parsons replied that this had not been discussed with the applicant because they had not since the airport had been permitted, been restricted to any specific area for habitat other than the Army Corps designated wetland areas. Councilmember Heller stated Mr. Parsons requested that the gate be moved on site and inquired if this was a condition. Mr. Parsons replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Heller noted the resurfacing before the entire project begins would alleviate a lot of the noise. She requested the Fire and Planning Departments check for the major gas line, which was something we needed to ensure was not there. Councilmember Heller stated that since there was no intensity of the use she would prefer there be no restriction on the number of flights or the times at this point, as it could be reviewed at the one and two year periods, to ascertain if they have become more of a nuisance. She felt it was fair to the landowner and hoped that a lot of the problems had been mitigated to the neighbors, and would vote in the affirmative. Mayor Boro requested Fire Chief Marcucci to work with the planning staff to ensure that the gas line was not a hazard. Mayor Boro requested Mr. Levy to comment specifically on the question Mr. Miller raised with respect to how to ensure that the prohibited uses are not occurring. Mr. Levy stated that the objectives of the video camera are: • to enable identification of the number on the airplane which does not follow the correct flight path; • to enable identification of planes which are not registered at the airport and therefore, do not belong there and are not allowed to use it. Mr. Levy stated there would be prohibited planes landing at the airport and the visualization of the numbers by virtue of the video camera would give some control. He stated it was not pragmatic to control the number of flights by authorized users; the nuisance impact is noise; therefore, logging the number of flights per day would be irrelevant. In terms of the prohibited uses, Mr. Levy stated they are doing everything possible to control this. Councilmember Miller inquired if there was a possibility of logging those prohibited flights and if it is ascertained they are mounting up, address some kind of solution to the problem. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 15 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 16 Mr. Levy stated there would not be a problem logging a prohibited activity but they have no penalty to impose. Mr. Miller stated if there was factual base, operations could be adjusted accordingly, the absence of which would leave no data on which to make a decision. Mr. Levy noted the tenants do not want prohibited users either and such a plane is reported to the FAA, which is the only enforcement mechanism at present. Mayor Boro stated that Mr. Miller's request was that as these infractions occur they should be logged, as it would be to our mutual benefit at the one and two year reviews; present allegations are that they are frequent; therefore, it would be helpful to share this information. Mr. Levy stated he did not have a problem attempting in good faith to make a notation when they find a violator but would suggest there are not many. They would not object to a condition which required them to log ascertained prohibited flights in or out of the airport. Mayor Boro reported there were three actions before the Council, with modifications to be made to #3. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 10794 — RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WETLAND OVERLAY (PD -WO) ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZC 00-15), MASTER USE PERMIT (UP 99-9) AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED98-59) FOR SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT LOCATED AT 397-400 SMITH RANCH ROAD (APN: 155- 230-10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT — WETLAND OVERLAY TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT — WETLAND OVERLAY (PD -WO) DISTRICT (ZC00-15) FOR THE SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT LOCATED AT 397-400 SMITH RANCH ROAD (APN: 155-230-10, 11, 12, 13,14 & 15)" Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1764 to print, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Community Development Director Brown stated there were three proposed amendments to the Master Use Permit Resolution: 1) Use Permit Condition #4 related to future review of violations by the City; 2) Noise Monitoring to establish a baseline at the direction of the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits; and 3) Maintenance of a log of prohibited flights and provision of that log to the City on a semi-annual basis. Mayor Boro requested that on the baseline it needed to be very explicit to the effect that it was not to be used as a standard but as input to the development of the noise ordinance. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution with the amendments noted by Mr. Brown. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 16 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 17 RESOLUTION NO. 10795— RESOLUTION APPROVING A MASTER USE PERMIT (UP99-9) AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED98-59) FOR THE SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT LOCATED AT 397-400 SMITH RANCH ROAD (APN: 155-230-10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15) (As amended) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 15. a) Dean Parsons' resignation: - File 7-4 Mayor Boro, noting the imminent departure of Dean Parsons, Senior Planner, expressed regret at his leaving and appreciation for all his hard work, wishing him much success. Mr. Parsons stated he enjoyed his time working for San Rafael. City Manager Gould noted Mr. Parsons' three years of excellent service to the City. b) Terra Linda Unification with Dixie School District — File 9-2-1 Councilmember Phillips reported he attended a meeting on Saturday, March 17, 2001, of the 47 member High School Unification Committee and looked forward to his continued participation. c) Congestion Management Agency Meeting: - File 170 x 191 Mayor Boro asked for a volunteer to attend the Congestion Management Agency Meeting on Thursday, March 22, 2001, at the Civic Center. Vice -Mayor Miller volunteered. d) Noise Ordinance Revision: - File 1-5 x 115 x 10-2 Councilmember Cohen commented that if there was any action Council needed to take to incorporate the airport standard study into the Noise Ordinance it should be agendiized for a future Council Meeting for formal action. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council Meeting at 10:30 p.m. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12001 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/19/2001 Page 17