HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2012-05-29 #2 Memo (1)Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 24, 2012
TO: Planning Commginior
' Chair Viktoriya Wise, and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Kraig Tamborni Planner
SUBJECT: May 29, 2012 Planning Commission Public Hearing - Public Comments
Summary; 397-400 Smith Ranch Road (San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility)
As the Commission is aware, a substantial number of comments have been received for this project
since the initial application was filed March 1, 2005. All of the project comments have been forwarded
to the Commission throughout the review process, and are available for review in the project files.
The intent of this memorandum is to summarize comments received to date. Any additional written
testimony received prior to the public hearing shall also be presented to the Planning Commission by
separate memorandum or at the public hearing.
Comments of Opposition or Concern
Hundreds of individual letters, emails and petition signatures have been received expressing
opposition or concerns with the project. These include comments from residents in Santa Venetia,
Captains Cove, Contempo Marin and Smith Ranch Homes neighborhoods located near and adjacent
to the project site. Comments have also been received from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, Marin
County Supervisors, County Public Works, County Parks, County Attorney, HOA's, and interest
groups including Marin Conservation League, Gallinas Creek Watershed Council, among others. The
Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental nonprofit group, also sponsored an email campaign
that thus far has resulted in over 4,110 responses from individuals concerned with impacts on
clapper rails; including a reported 145 San Rafael residents and 403 Marin County residents (a
hardcopy printout of respondents has been published and CD made of all emails received to date).
Primary concerns identified with the project are as follows:
• The project would exceed the development intensity anticipated by the declaration of restrictions
• More intensive land uses of the airport site could be proposed if the recreational use fails
• The project poses a safety risk to aircraft by placing structures near the runway.
• The project poses a safety risk to potential users of the facility, particularly children, as a result of
a potential airplane crash at the project site
• There is a health risk from lead used in aviation gas
• Outdoor field lighting would create glare and change the residential character at night
• The project would create noise especially in evenings disrupting the current peace and quiet
enjoyed in the area
• Alcohol sales would result in potential nuisance issues including loitering, noise, accidents, etc.
• Traffic noise would negatively affect nearby residents given that the access road borders homes
at Captains Cove and Contempo Marin residential area
• Proposed late hours of operation are not compatible with the surrounding residential uses
• Vehicle headlights may shine into homes located near the access road
• Project -related traffic would increase delays and hazards at side street intersections with Smith
Ranch Road, particularly Yosemite Road, due to existing conditions that limit visibility of
oncoming traffic
Community Development Department
✓ 'Tj MEMORANDUM
• The project has only one access, over a bridge, that limits access in an emergency
• Development is proposed below flood elevation in an area that is not protected with adequate
levees, which creates a public liability and safety risk for occupants
• The project would preclude ability to reclaim low lying lands in response to sea level rise
• Placement of a large building on the site would result in a sense of loss of open space particularly
from McInnis Park, trails along the creek, Gallinas Creek waterway and adjacent residences
• The project would adversely impact the natural environment due to building on historic wetlands,
increasing drainage into Gallinas Creek and impact on endangered species such ash the clapper
rail
Comments of Support
Hundreds of individual letters, emails and signed petitions have been received in support of the
project from residents, interested parties and interest groups. This includes letters of support from
San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Marin County Sheriff's office,
Marin Soccer League, San Rafael Youth Soccer Club, and Marin Women's Soccer League, among
others. A petition drive sponsored by the facility soccer operator has generated 297 emails in support
of the project (to date); reportedly from potential local users in Marin and Sonoma County area.
Primary comments in support of the facility include the following:
• The project would provide vital recreational facilities and services needed in the community,
particularly opportunities for all-weather and year round play for adult and youth leagues
• The facility is complementarily placed near existing regional recreational uses and fields at
McInnis Park
• Marin County lacks adequate number of quality soccer fields available making it difficult to
schedule league games and requiring people to travel outside of the area and more fields are
needed to meet local demand
• This facility will increase recreational opportunities, particularly for Marin youth, which is important
and needed
Conclusion
In general, development that is proposed within the City urban boundary and consistent with the
General Plan 2020 land use designation, and policies, should be encouraged and promoted;
although development at the "highest and best" level of intensity is not guaranteed. As the
Commission is aware, testimony received on discretionary zoning entitlements are an important and
integral part of the decision-making process. Such public input and review helps establish whether a
project would adequately promote community values, as well as whether any revisions should be
required to assure that a project would harmoniously integrate with surrounding land uses, and/or
respond to community needs or concerns.
Public review of this project has resulted in mitigations being required, and draft conditions
recommended in response to concerns with land use compatibility, safety and the environment. If the
project is supported, the Commission may consider requiring further revisions or conditions in
response to all testimony received and its own evaluation of the project's merit.
Attachment(s):
Comments received after publication of the March 27, 2012 PC Staff Report
CD Center for Biological Diversity Emails received through March 2012 & List through May 2, 2012
2