HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2012-05-29 #2 Correspondence (3)SANRAFAELAWORT LLC
May 23, 2012
Chair Viktoriya Wise
City of San Rafael Planning Commission
1400 51h Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: Safety of San Rafael Sports Center
Dear Chair Wise and Planning Commissioners:
.1-105 F�, r Fa, m I,(o Rout t_F\ARD, SF I i F A
ti N R\r-.aFt_, C..v-I1010dA 04001
TEL 41 5/453-0-211
i-\\ 415/453-0421
As the project sponsor and airport owner of 29 years, we would like to
respond to the issues of project safety raised in the recent March 9, 2012 letter from
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.
We the airport owner and operator have an obligation to maintain a safe
environment not just for our pilots, but also for our non -aviation tenants and
surrounding neighbors. This is an obligation that we take extremely seriously (at
threat of legal action), and no project is planned at San Rafael Airport without first
considering its potential impact on safety. The San Rafael Sports Center is certainly
no exception to this rule. Before considering the project, we checked all applicable
FAA and Caltrans rules and regulations to make sure it was an acceptable airport
use. We found no evidence to the contrary, and in fact discovered that similar
recreational facilities were located at other larger airports throughout the state,
including Wiseman Airport Park at Petaluma Municipal Airport. We therefore
proceeded to locate and design the project in compliance with then existing
standards (which is after all the only thing that one can do).
From 2006 to 2011, the City conducted an exhaustive environmental study of
the project at a cost to us of over $600,000. That review included an in-depth safety
analysis conducted by Mead & Hunt, one of the state's leading aviation engineers,
and co-author of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook ("Handbook").
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics on two occasions provided written commentary on
the project plans and environmental study, in both cases expressing no reservations
over the proposed recreational use. On January 24, 2012, the Planning Commission
voted to certify the final project EIR.
Given all of the above, it came as a huge surprise and shock to us to receive
Caltrans' March 9, 2012 letter, in which they asked the City to'consider' new 2011
Handbook guidance which recommends against locating stadiums or group
recreational uses within Safety Zones 2, 3, 4, or 5 at Public Use airports. We learned
after talking to Caltrans that the Handbook contains no discussion of why the
change was made, nor does it contain a definition of the new term `group
recreational use'. Further,' no new accident data support the change, nor was
Caltrans able to point to a single historical injury or fatality at the numerous other
recreation facilities located in airport safety zones around the state. Despite all this,
we have been forced to mount a major response to Caltrans' letter, which after
attorney and consultant fees for further studies and attendance at future hearings,
will likely cost upwards of another $30,000.
This project is a badly needed community serving recreation facility. It is
being built without public assistance, and simply cannot support these types of
exorbitant processing costs. If the City wants to see this project built, we ask its
leaders to approve this project without further delay or cost.
Our specific response to the Caltrans letter is summarized below, with
detailed discussion on the following pages:
➢ The Handbook by law applies only to Public Use airports, which typically
have hundreds of daily flights including jet aircraft and often commercial
passenger service. San Rafael Airport in contrast is a small private use
airport with only a handful of daily flights by aircraft typically weighing less
than an average SUV. It is not appropriate to apply Public Use airport
standards to private use airports like San Rafael Airport.
➢ Mead & Hunt, the City's aviation safety consultant for the EIR, and co-author
of the 2002 and 2011 Handbooks, has reviewed the Caltrans letter and
determined that the project intensity levels continue to fall below new 2011
Handbook guidelines for Public Use airports, and the project remains
acceptable from a risk standpoint (see M&H letter to City).
Gadske, Dillon, & Balance, aviation law experts and also co-authors of the
2002 and 2011 Handbooks, have also reviewed the Caltrans letter and
determined that the extensive project safety analysis within the EIR remains
valid, and the project does not present any airport -related safety concerns
(see GD&B letter to City).
The San Rafael Sports Center location is neither unique nor unusual.
Recreation facilities are commonly located in Safety Zones 2, 3, 4, & 5 at busy,
Public Use airports throughout the State and country. We have not found a
single example of an aircraft -related fatality at any of these facilities, despite
many, many years of use near busy, Public Use airports.
Ground fatalities from aircraft are incredibly rare. Many years there are zero
in the entire United States. By comparison 483 people died on Bay Area
highways last year. Marin families commonly must travel out of county to
find field space (including to Wiseman Airport Park at Petaluma Municipal
Airport!). Our project reduces overall risk exposure to Marin families by
keeping them near to home.
Public Use vs. Private Use Airports
The March 9, 2012 Caltrans letter fails to clearly state that the Handbook
guidelines by law apply only to Public Use airports, and therefore are not applicable
to San Rafael Airport, a small private use airport closed to the general public. Before
proceeding it is important to understand why the State Aeronautics Law and the
Handbook distinguish between Public Use and private use airports.
Public Use airports by law must be open to the general public, including
student pilots and out-of-town visitors. They must comply with minimum standards
for runway width and length, in order to accommodate a wide range of aircraft.
Most Public Use airports cater to corporate jets, and many also support commercial
air passenger service. Daily flights typically number in the hundreds, occur day and
night in sunshine, rain, or snow, and numerous flights are by non -based pilots using
the airport for the first time.
Contrast this busy picture with San Rafael Airport, one of the smallest and
quietest private use airports in the state. On most days the total number of flights at
San Rafael Airport can be counted on one hand. Because of our short runway, our
typical aircraft is small and weighs less than an average SUV. We have no corporate
jets. Most of our pilots fly for recreation and hold only a VFR license, which means
they can only fly in good weather. The general public is prohibited, so only our
experienced based pilots, who know the area well, use the field. For these reasons,
San Rafael Airport has an extremely low risk profile compared to typical Public Use
airports.
Experts Concur That Project Remains Safe
The City has received two detailed letters from aviation safety experts
testifying that the project is appropriately designed and continues to comply with
current FAA and Caltrans safety standards. These experts are eminently qualified to
make this determination, as they co-authored both the 2002 and 2011 versions of
the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Ken Brodie of Mead & Hunt
and Lori Balance of Gadske, Dillon, & Balance are in fact listed by name in the
Handbook Acknowledgements (see attached). Mr. Brodie and Ms. Balance engaged
in extensive discussions with their Caltrans counterparts regarding the meaning and
intent of the March 9, 2012 Caltrans letter. On the basis of those discussions and
their own intimate knowledge of the Handbook, they have advised the City in
detailed writing that the project remains safe.
Comparable Recreation Facilities Located in Airport Safety Zones 2-5
The location and activities of the San Rafael Sports Center are neither unique
nor unusual compared to other airports around the state and country. Many
airports have playfields and recreation buildings located in Safety Zones 2, 3, 4, or S.
Petaluma Municipal Airport and Reid Hillview County Airport in San Jose are two
good local examples. Both have multiple youth recreation facilities within Safety
Zones 2-5, and both are Public Use airports with longer runways, bigger planes, and
hugely higher daily flight activity than San Rafael Airport. Santa Monica Municipal
Airport and San Diego International Airport are two even greater extremes. Both
provide commercial passenger service with over 450 daily flights, and yet have
soccer, baseball, and other family recreation facilities located in the middle of
Sideline Safety Zone 5. Numerous other examples around the state and country are
included as attachments to this letter. We have not found a single example of
aircraft related fatalities at any of these recreation facilities.
In viewing the Safety Zone diagrams at other airports, it is important to
understand how they are constructed. As shown in Figure 3A of the Handbook,
bigger, busier airports have bigger safety zones. For example, Sideline Safety Zone 5
can be 500, 750, or 1000 feet in width, depending on the length of the runway. This
reflects the added risk of bigger, faster aircraft using the longer runways. It is
inappropriate to compare recreational facilities by comparing their absolute
distances from runway centerlines. For example, the soccer fields at San Diego
International Airport are 480 feet from centerline, which puts them in the middle of
their Safety Zone 5. Our fields are 170-300 feet from centerline, which is the middle
of our Safety Zone 5. It would be inaccurate to state that our fields are less safe
because they are closer. Both fields are in Safety Zone 5, and when you factor in
type and frequency of flight activity, it should be quite clear that our facility has
substantially lower risk.
So, when comparing San Rafael Airport to these other airports, please keep in
mind that (1) these are all Public Use airports, (2) these all have longer runways and
bigger planes, and (3) these all have substantially larger daily flight activity. If
recreation facilities at these airports are safe (and there is absolutely no evidence to
indicate otherwise), then certainly the San Rafael Sports Center is safe.
Putting Aircraft Risk Into Perspective
Aircraft crashes are rare. To put it in perspective, the average person has a 1
in 88 chance of being injured or killed in an automobile accident, compared to only 1
in 11 million for an airplane crash. And that is for people in the airplane. The
chances of being struck on theground by an airplane are infinitesimal. You are 6
times more likely to be killed by a lightning than by an airplane strike. Perhaps
precisely because airplane crashes are so rare, they receive a lot of publicity. We
saw such an example at the project's EIR certification hearing, where we were
shown sensational news footage of an airplane crash at a Michigan soccer field,
complete with a sobbing teenage girl. What wasn't explained was that the soccer
field was empty, and that neither the teenager nor anyone else on the ground was
hurt. How surprising that a project opponent was not forthright about these facts.
Clearly everything in life comes with some level of risk. Walking to school
carries risk. Playing sports carries risk. Driving in a car to an out-of-town sports
facility carries significant risk. Last year alone 483 people died driving on Bay Area
highways. Due to our extreme field shortage in Marin County, many of our families
must travel long distances on Bay Area highways in order to play sports. The
Commission has received hundreds of parent letters attesting to this fact. Steven
Sosa, president of San Rafael Youth Soccer League, has testified to the Commission
that his league commonly plays games at Wiseman Airport Park, located in safety
zone 3 at Petaluma Municipal Airport. What carries more risk? Driving all the way
to Petaluma to play at a busy Public Use airport, or staying close to home and
playing at quiet San Rafael Airport? We firmly believe the San Rafael Sports Center
will actually reduce overall community risk by keeping our families off the highways,
and by providing them with safe high quality all-weather field surfaces (something
that is currently sorely lacking here in Marin).
Final Notes and Conclusions
As mentioned in the opening, this project has been designed from day one to
be compliant with all FAA and Caltrans safety standards. In particular the heights of
the buildings, lights, and fences were kept beneath the ascending clear zones
outlined by FAA Part 77. The project EIR, and Caltrans March 9, 2012 letter,
indicate that the parking lot fence and 1St row of cars may intrude by a few inches
into the 7:1 ascending clear zones. We believe this is incorrect, but in any case any
such minor discrepancies will be corrected in the final building plans, and verified
by the FAA when we file our required Notice of Proposed Construction. We do not
believe that any significant project modifications will be required. As regards the 1St
row of parking, the Caltrans letter states that vehicle heights must remain below
Part 77 ascending clear zones. To address this, parking spaces along the fence will
be striped and limited to compact cars. Attached is a revised project cross section
that demonstrates that both compact cars and mini -vans will comfortably fit
beneath the FAA 7:1 ascending clear zones.
In summary, based on all of the facts discussed herein, not least of which is
our 30 years of experience and knowledge owning and operating San Rafael Airport,
we remain very confident that the San Rafael Sports Center represents a beneficial
and safe co -use. My daughter was 3 years old when we began this project back in
2004. She is 11 now and her 7 year old brother has since joined us. Both love
soccer and other sports, and will be major users of this new facility. We are a family
company with strong local Marin roots and a reputation for building high quality
projects. You can be assured that we would not build a facility that would endanger
our children, our neighbors, or other Marin families.
After 8 years and over $600,000 of exhaustive and thorough environmental
analysis, it is time to approve this project. This is a public service project. We are
not Target or George Lucas with unlimited time and funds to continue this paralysis
by analysis (as we saw recently with Grady Ranch, even Lucas has his limits). You
know how important this project is to Marin families. They have told you so in
thousands of heartfelt emails and letters. This project has been studied nearly to
death. I beg you to approve it now so that we might build it while my children are
still young enough to use it.
Best regards,
Bob Herbst -Manager
San Rafael Airport
cc Mayor Phillips and City Council
Attachments 2011 Handbook Acknowledgements
Airport Safety Zone Diagrams & Aerial Photos
Parking Lot Cross Section
i
n
..
l �
��`��
� yJ.
•ten
r
Ak7f► ,•t
m-
m
n
PF
Ak7f► ,•t
r
PF
Ak7f► ,•t
r
?,I
w
_
C
O
� � �
A•V, a O
0
r
�
—low
®
0.0
L^i
- :
.
00-.0
4 •
�_!-.tip
L
w
W
i
1
_
C
O
� � �
A•V, a O
0
a 9,
4-
,
41
PER
NO
u
-4
o -t
00thall
LIP
wo*
■r
_h-
_
�
r
�'
,F
..
;
%��.
T+.
S,
��
A
c
'�
-NV
rP-1 -
cc
CL
CL
O
O
Cf)
rP-1 -
•
Ul)
j4-4
4 �+
ISj
�k
ti
is
P°4F� t • ?t'S,7vy
INN
F ,11 11 m I loll,
gpv-m
October 2011
Acknowledgements
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Division of Aeronautics
Gary Cathey, Division Chief
Terry L. Barrie, Chief, Office of Aviation Planning
Jeff Brown, Chief, Office of Airports
Betsy Eskridge, Aviation Specialist
Brady Tacdol, Aviation Planner
Ron Bolyard, Aviation Planner
Terry Farris, Former Aviation Planner
Derek Kantar, Aviation Planner
Philip Crimmins, Environmental Specialist
Sandy Hesnard, Former Environmental Specialist
Legal Division
Raiyn Bain, State Attorney
Division of Transportation Planning
Gary Arnold, Former Community Planner
CONSULTANTS
Environmental Science Associates
Steve Alverson
Brian Grattidge
Phil Wade
Mead & Hunt kollo�
Ken Brody
Corbett Smith
Stephanie Ward
HMMH
Diana B. Wasiuk
Gatzke Dillon & Balance 4 f� f <
'
Lori Balance
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
J U
W
pr
d I
z4 _ I —
' U
W
+a
ulb
J
W�H
�W
ZZ
r Z N ,
W q 1
Q U ;
P.
ZD
r
n
W
r
F
!K7
Z �
�o
ouj
z f'
Q
O V
W
CAU
� ce
ri C7
z
o�e
U
Z ~
O w
LAv
ac z
¢a
CL CC
OW
U V
BUILDING AN AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN 3
1,000 - ► F"
\ Ln S Example 1:
3cp 4 -- — Short General Aviation Runway
p 9 g Assumptions:
U 1 mi -Length less than 4,000 feet
1 -Approach visibility minimums > 1 mile or
g visual approach only
4 4
-Zone 1= 250'x 450'x 1,000'
See Note 1.
___4,500'__ -500'
j,000' 4
C6
Example 2:
Medium General Aviation Runway
3 3 Assumptions:
s t •Length 4,000 to 5,999 feet
8 � s
-Approach visibility minimums > 3/4 mile
and < 1 mile
r)
*Zone 1 = 1,000'x 1,510'x 1,700'
See Note 1.
lr1Wd
/ 4
a
1,000'
1,500' — j -
Example 3:
1 3 a 9 Long General Aviation Runway
tD' Assumptions.
5 �, 1 a 'Length 6,000 feet or more
\` •Approach visibility minimums < 3/4 mile
•Zone 1 = 1,000' x 1,750' x 2,500'
I See Note 1.
FIGURE 3A
Safety Compatibility Zone Examples ® General Aviation Runways
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook 3-17
3 BUILDING AN AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN
Legend
1 ,000 — $+
2 b
1\ 3 0
' vl
6
5 5
50U
6,000' 1750'
1,000' ---I I�
Notes:
Example 4:
General Aviation Runway with
Single -Sided Traffic Pattern
Assumptions:
• No traffic pattern on right
*Length 4,000 to 5,999 feet
*Approach visibility minimums >_ 3/4 mile
and < 1 mile
*Zone 1 = 1,000'x 1,510'x 1,700'
See Note 1.
Example 5.
Low-Activlty General Aviation Runway
Assumptions:
,Less than 2,000 takeoffs and landings
per year at individual runway end.
*Length less than 4,000 feet
*Approach visibility minimums > 1 mile or
visual approach only
*Zone 1 = 250'x 450'x 1,000'
See Note 1.
1. Runway Protection Zone 1. RPZ (Zone 1) size in each example is as indicated by FAA criteria for
2. Inner Approach/Departure Zone the approach type assumed. Adjustment may be necessary if the
3. Inner Turning Zone Approach type differs.
4. Outer Approach/Departure Zone 2. See Figure 3A for factors to consider regarding other possible adjustments
5. Sideline Zone to these zones to reflect characteristics of a specific airport runway.
6. Traffic Pattern Zone 3. See Figures 4B through 4G for guidance on compatibility criteria
applicable with each zone.
These examples are intended to provide general guidance for establishment of airport safety compatibility
zones. They do not represent California Department of Transportation standards or policy.
FIGURE 3A CONTINUED
3-18 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook