Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2012-05-29 #2 Correspondence (2)Comments of Oppo oon LINDA LEVEY 1 5 15 VENDOLA DRIVE SAN RAFAEL • CALIFORNIA • 94903 P 4 1 5-499-34 1 1 • F 4 1 5-507-1 590 LIN DA@SANTAVEN ETIA. ORG May 24, 2012 San Rafael Planning Commission c/o Kraig Tambornini City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA 94901 Re: San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility — Merits of the Project Dear Planning Commissioners: It is hard to know what to say, what is important, when trying to put into words how devastating this project will be for our neighborhood. And I know you have heard it all, and I appreciate your time, and I really don't want to bore. you to tears, but... here goes... I grew up in the City of San Rafael and have lived in Marin County for almost 50 years, the last 23 in Santa Venetia. I have attended countless meetings regarding not only this project, but many land use projects including past projects on the Airport. There are numerous problems with the Airport, with this site, and with this project. It is hard to not speak to ALL of the issues, but I know others have done so, and I hope you have heard them. I would like to make a quick mention and add my voice to theirs in opposition of the havoc this will wreak on our watershed, our clapper rails, our night skies, our quiet lives... But the main.points I wish to address are about my sense of FAIR-ness. I know I have addressed this in past meetings, but perhaps that was not the best time — I believe now is that time — and thankfully we are past the "technical stuff' (not my forte') and onto the "merits" where hopefully you will take into account the un-FAIR-ness of this project for our neighborhood. have two (sort of) specific points: May 24, 2012 LINDA L EV EY Page 2 of 3 1. Master Use Permit Violations / Bad Neiahbors According to the FEIR, there are many aspects of the project that will be controlled, maintained, and monitored by Airport Management. The "Airport" (Owner, Manager, Operator) have not been good neighbors. They have broken previous promises to both the City and the neighborhoods. They have violated the rules of their current Master Use Permit (MUP) (this has been documented with the City of San Rafael) but yet their MUP has not been revoked (as is a condition in that agreement). Why would/should they be afforded more opportunities? As stated in the 1/24/12 Staff Report: "Mitigation measures rely on the airport owner to monitor the site. City enforcement capabilities are limited by its resources. Given these limitations, how will monitoring be accomplished by the City?" And the report goes on to speak about monitoring and staffing but states: "There are no long-term monitoring requirements that would require periodic, ongoing assessments to be conducted." This has been our problem all along. The City is the only overseer of this private Airport and has minimal oversight. More recently, while the Airport has been trying to get this project approved, they have responded more quickly to complaints, but in the past (and I believe the future), have not and will not play by the rules. For the 11/15/11 meeting, we submitted a listing of violations regarding the Master Use Permit. I have attached that list. I was going to attach the complete documentation, but it's a whole lot of paperwork. So, rather than burden the Planning Department, please advise if you would like to review all, or specific items, of the documented violations and if so, I will prepare and bring with me on Tuesday 1/29/12 for your perusal. Most of the projects on the Airport have been contentious and complaints have included such important issues such as illegal fill and extending the runway without a permit. The permit that was approved for the increased hangars came with promises to protect our neighborhood with landscaping/screening and as you know, that never happened. I ask you to truly consider the past actions of the Airport when deciding if you are going to let them move forward with yet another project on this site. 2. ®eclaration of Restrictions — Broken Promises We (the entire County of Marin) were promised low-density on this site in exchange for high-density down the road. This is a bargaining chip used in many, many land use projects. Currently, while we are seeing new projects use this same process as a way to get their projects approved, at the same time we are seeing older agreements ignored. What does this do to the trust? And as to this specific agreement — why should we be punished because the lawmakers at the time did not properly execute the document protecting us and adhering to what was agreed to (as attested/agreed to at different May 24, 2012 LINDA L EV EY Page 3 of 3 times by then -Supervisor Roumiguiere, then -County Counsel Maloney, and (I believe) then -Mayor Mulryan, and as documented in the minutes from the 1983 BOS meeting). For the 11/15/11 meeting, I submitted a letter outlining my argument related to the Declaration of Restrictions and that documentation. I have once -again included that packet in this submittal. As mentioned in this letter, and as attested to at the 1/24/12 meeting (see transcription below), City Staff is insisting that there was no agreement or promise, for lesser density. I believe that to be an erroneous conclusion and I hope you will agree. "And lastly with regard to the Shute Mihaly letter in the draft EIR, they had made some reference that the Deed Restriction was required as a mitigation measure - that's not supported by the evidence in the record. In fact, the County hasn't made that claim, the County has just said that their opinion is that they question that the proposed project may conflict with the intent of the Deed Restriction so they're not raising that as a concern, they're a party to the agreement. I think that the City and the County have both fully analyzed what the Deed Restriction says, what the record says, and we're certain that it wasn't required for a transfer of development intensity or for any other purpose than at the time it was something that was imposed on the property for purposes of limiting the types of land uses on the property. So there's no question that it's not a mitigation measure from prior development." To sum it up, the main issue, the Trojan Horse per se, I see with this project is the rezoning. We all know that once the rezoning is allowed and the Declaration of Restrictions is lifted, all bets are off. We have no assurances that the building will be built, the "improvements" will be made, and/or how long all of that will take and/or how long it will stay in business. Past promises have not been kept. Future promises? It's anyone's guess. Again, for these and the many other concerns brought up during these many meetings, I stand with my many neighbors in asking you to deny this project on its merits. Thank you for your time, Linda Levey To: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner, City of San Rafael, CDA Please accept the following into the record November 15, 2011 San Rafael Airport Soccer/Recreational Facility VIOLATIONS REGARDING THE MASTER USE PERMIT From MUP Review January 11, 2005: 4. This Master Use Permit does not have an expiration date. However, the Master Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for compliance with project conditions of approval one and two years after the Master Use Permit is approved. As a part of these compliance reviews, the Planning Commission may modify the Master Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit conditions of approval. If there are any violations to these conditions of approval or the Municipal Code in the future, the Manning Commission has the ability to consider an amendment or revocation to the Master Use Permit. In order to show lack of oversight, examples of bad management, and violations to the Master Use Permit, we have compiled a list of documented violations. Because of the excessive amounts of violations, we have Out into four categories: Non - aviation Uses, Land Use Violations, Safety Violations, and Bad Neighbor Behavior. Please note; this is a partial list only, due to the late hour and excessive work required, Further documentation can be supplied if requested. This Applicant/Property Owner has shown a poor track record with this property, poor stewardship of the land, disregard for the environment, and unwillingness to abide by previous agreements. City Officials have also shown a poor track record in enforcement of the Master Use Permit and following up on complaints from our neighborhood. Because of the history of non-compliance to the Master Use Permit as well as other code regulations, it is unfathomable for us to believe that the Applicant/Property Owner will be forthcoming in mitigating, after -the -fact, such potential significant impacts such as noise and lights. If City Staff and Planning Commission feel that a strenuous review of the Master Use Permit is recommended to bring their house in order, we will supply the information/correspondence listed below. Below is the list of documented events, email correspondence (between City, County, State, and other Agencies or Officials) proving documented examples of violations and bad behavior: Page 1 of 2 Master Use Permit Violations. 2010-01-22. Email. Kraig ReViolations 2009-06-23.Craigslist.CarStorageRental 2009-06-23Craig s listWa rehouse Rental 2009-10-21. Email. Kraig 2009-12-23.Mari n IJ. Food Ban kEvent 2010-01-20. Craig slist.Wood 2010-02-19.RotaryCrabFeastEvent 2010-05-15.CIPBenefitEvent 2010-07-02.San Rafael Patch ReAirp o rt 2011-07-06.Craig slist. Lounge EventRental 2010-08-04. Picture. Disking. Final 2011-08-30.Craigslist.FlyToBurningMan 2011-08-30.Craigslist. FlyToBurning Man Deleted 2011-11-03.Patch. HerbstComment Land Use Violations Illegal Fill 1991-11-20.SRPC.Minutes 1991-11-20.SRReportToPC 1998-07-14.SanRafael LetterReFill. pdf Levees & Fill 2000-10. Email. Levee -Fill. pdf 2006-09-07. Email, Farhad-Herbst.pdf 2006-11-14. Email. FarhadReLeveeFil1 2006-11-15.Emai Is. FarhadLeveeBreach. pdf 2009-10-06.Email, ClayReLevee Safety Violations FlightPathComplaints 2006-10-12. Letter. Hanley-Raffi 2006-10-12.Attach. RaffiLetter 2006-11-01.RaffiEmailReHeavyPlanes+ 2006-09-02.Large PlanePic 2001-10-13. Report. NTS B Bad Neighbors & Bad Behavior 1986-11-17.Letter.ThreateningNeighbor 1990. NewsPointerArticle 1991-11-15. PacS u nArticle 2005-06-21. Emai I.Gould-Herbst 2007-03-12. Letter. BriscoeReBaylandsCorridor 2001-04-24.Letter.Shek6uReWildlifeCorridor 2007-03-15.Airport-Dred ing-Levees Letters 2008-02-14. Laws uit.Airport-SVNeighbors This document prepared by "The Goals Group", signed below: C��pS7 Page 2 of 2 LINDA LEVEY 1 5 15 VENDOL.A DRIVE SAN RAFAEL ' CALIFORNIA • 94903 P415-499-341 I'F415-507-1590 LI NDA@SANTAVEN ETIA. ORG November 15, 2011 Kraig Tambornini, Planner 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901-1943 Kraig.TamborniniCa.ci.san-rafael.ca.us 415-485-3092 Re: San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility — FEIR Meeting We have lived in this neighborhood over .20 years. Too much of that time has been spent on land use issues and/or at land use meetings. And although we don't have a vote, or much say, many of those meetings have been related to projects or issues for the City of San Rafael. And much of that has been related to the Marin Ranch Airport aka Smith Ranch Airport aka San Rafael Airport site. The FEIR for this Project shows numerous items open-ended, with no deadlines enforced. We have continuously suffered with the City of San Rafael's lack of enforcement at this site and once again, we are being left at the mercy of a Landowner who has a track record of poor stewardship, always "pushing the envelope" on allowable uses, and inconsideration for his neighbors. The FEIR and the Staff Report seem to come to the conclusion that this .project is in compliance with the Declaration of Restrictions on this site, 1 would firmly disagree with this conclusion and wish to bring up the following points (attached): ■ In 1991, not so long after the Declaration of Restrictions was agreed to, the Landowner sued the City of San Rafael to allow building on the site. Attached is a copy of the Declaration from then Supervisor, Robert Romiguiere, fighting this lawsuit and attesting to the intent of the Declaration of Restrictions as low- density uses. Attached is an article from the Pacific Suri from that same year detailing the issues the neighborhood had to face while trying to keep this site free of "development." Attached is a 1999 News Pointer article quoting County Counsel, Douglas Maloney: "This is not a public interest lawsuit." Where once again the Landowner is suing for development rights. LINDA LEVEY November 15, 2011 Page 2 of 3 And finally, just yesterday. we learned of a letter from County Counsel sent in December 2009 that was not included in the current FEIR or documentation to date. The attachment to that letter includes the 1983 Minutes authorizing execution .of the deed restriction, with approval of Planning Department and County Counsel, which would prohibit any further development of the property - (All AYES). This County Counsel letter was referenced in the Staff Report incorrectly as supporting for this project when in fact that wasn't the case. Numerous emails . and . communications between the City and County have occurred and I am hoping you are privy to those exchanges. I have attached a copy of my email to Kraig and his response. For me, it is all about "F A I R". In exchange for the increased density allowed at Marin . Lagoon, Embassy Suites, and Autodesk, we were promised that this site was to be kept density -free, free of development, open space.... That agreement was for "open space" and parklands, not an 85,000 sq foot building with the people, noise, and traffic that will generate. I have commented mostly on the "Declaration of Restrictions" in my letter, but like my neighbors, I feel there are numerous faulty conclusions in the FEIR and I wish to reiterate my agreement with the comments supplied by my neighbors who have voiced opposition to this project. There are still many other considerations and questions: The DEIR for this Project shows numerous effects on the Environment, Noise, Traffic, etc. that have all been reduced to "less than significant" in the FEIR. Seriously, how can this be factual? If the FEIR is certified and once rezoning is allowed, do they have to build this complex — is it required? Or can they change plans midstream as happens so often? Do the soccer players and/or neighbors who show up in force to support this project understand this is a private facility and may/will not benefit them? We see in the news that in the current economy, McInnis Park is having trouble meeting their obligations. If they do build this complex and it fails (a la McInnis at this time), what uses will be allowed on the property? Will the building come down? You have left some things to be decided after the fact including noise and lights. Considering past behavior, is this fair to your constituents? But of course the final point is... what happens when/if this business fails and/or the Landowner sues once again to make even more money off his property. Now that you LINDA LEVEY November 15, 2011 Page 3 of 3 have further eroded the original "Declaration of Restrictions" and given this Landowner the rezoning he has been fighting for all these years, will we suffer further for these bad decisions? The City of San Rafael and the County of Marin are supposed to protect OUR interests. Please, keep that in mind as you refuse to certify this faulty FEIR and deny this project. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, (CN©FEDV# Linda Levey Attachments: 1991 Declaration from Robert Roumiguiere 1991 Article from the Pacific Sun 1990 Article from the San Rafael/Terra Linda News Pointer 12/28/09 Letter from County Counsel to Kraig Tambornini 11/14/11 Emails to/from Kraig Tambornini . 1 3 4- 5 6 7 DOUGLAS J. MALONEY, County Counsel:: Suite 342; Civ'16 Center San Rafael, CA 94903 ITeleph6n'e: '(415) 499-6117 Attorney for Defend . ant, COUNTY OF MARIN: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1j b/ ,_V OF COUNTY OF MARIN 10 11 JOE SHEKOU,. HAIDY SHEKOUi - WILLI-AM !1J. BIELSER, AUDREY BIELSER, No'147042 11 ASHLEY BIELSER., CH ' RISTOPHER. BIELSER, 12 WESTLAND HOUSING INC., California Corporation, DECLARATION OF 13 ROBERT ROUMIGUIEPE. IN Plaintiffs SUPPORT OF .-COUNTY 14 ZOLAIN I S SEPARATE STATE - MENT IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'"MOTION FOR vs. SIMMAR'Y JUDGMENT 16 HEARING DATE.-' 10)30/91 TIME: CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, a municipal 9:00 A.M. 17 corporation'and COUNTY OF MARIN, a political subdivision DEPARTMENT:'S TRIAL DATE: None... of the State of California,18 i 19 Defehdants. 20 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, Y 21 Cross -Complainant, 22 VS. 23 JOE SHEKOU, at.al.. Y 24 Cross -Defendant. '25 26 ROBERT ROUMIGUIERE declares: 27 h I ,a Ave..,bee:. n Via rin county Supervisor since September 26 28 1972.: ,_V OF i 1 2, On or abou December 14, 1983, I was he Chairman of the 2 Marin County Hoard of �soi sflrs. At that time I was contacted b- 3 Dwight Winther on behalf of Coleman Consultants, which firm 4 represented the owners of a development project }mown as Civic i 5 Center North, located in the City of San Rafael and my supervisorial j 6 district. i 7 3° Mr. Winther .asked me to present the declaration of 8 restrictions, which•is the subject matter of this litigation, to the 9 Board of Supervisors for consideration and approval on an expedited 10 iasis, due to time constraints• -the developer was.experiencing. 11 4. 1 had previously urged the City of San Rafael to reguire a 12 deciaration.of restrictions -of this :type and natue as a condition 13 of approval of the Civic Center North project t :or.ate adverse 14 ' fit $' engendered by t1is density allowed for this p�7�� • If. the 15 Declarati:ori of. Re trictionsi had not been required', ,,r,,;�,.,on behalf of 16 My constituents. iia .the vicinity., we�d•have uxgad ,to r.i.ty.ta seduce j 17 ajg�ed density i'og• the project. ; i 18 H, In my opinion, based on my experience as a County ! 19 Supgrvisor, during which I considered scores of land development i 20projects, the Declaration of Restrictions was an integral factor in 21the approval of the Civic Center North 'project 'at the allowed density. 23 I DECLARE UNDER' PENALTY OF PERJURY that, the foregoing is true � 24- 25. 26 27 28 and correct. Executed at San Rafael, Cal' in , ()C 1991. RnRERT RnUMIGUIECE G: \DJM\hPT- �;< AGE ,*,.{:, P.•1 fI.AY.1P7 r... /. - ,t rY •tel .'+: .•�` f-`fy r/ �l� CITY ATTEST;. Y +.fir . � a . c•� � • ,r. t\ f N i • . 6, P • 'lr111ti�"•� - bj r b L ' f ( t • � j. .. 1 Fite #: ZC05-01/t1P05-08/EDOS-15 Title: Covenant of Restrictions iZfiO S9. I a lu 's Cc: co lu u x s fn Ei 9-5 COL -0 -tj j U" a I I H j i 'u lu j- > Lo. r- 15 fn iz u 0 r- OfT5 I e',' 7. 7. EO _0 lu- —a 41 S qu a- -r- o 4� U'= 4 j�' -;:" r- &I �c g -fU4 om vE = �" u 4i 2-2 cu ol 2 top -a LC r X ul in -M 19�' —iu, 080 8t r C: g 4 H It) OE E; tea` it ON 'LA .:...::...:.:: :.:.. ..... �::,, .'::,.,......i..��:.:::w.::i'r:.::.i::��:.iv.:�..fv�:.:..:::4::::'i.......................................... ..... .., n /.:»rri i'+.. /.i r. fif .:�rv.xrc ................................................. n.... . ....4. r.»..v.»��.��..... n.r..•• .� } �:4.. �. ..:�.. is .. i.. •.::: i.:. .. f' r Jam:.. ,�.—FEB. 27.2006' 9:09AM-- b O •� • �., � � ly, A O Z ,�p o� R Aon a wa �a 0 Mat", � t' . _t, Ix {p � 6 ;�CA~ }moi R,C9 O wjoj Mcn`u o� E� SRT`;° N9 a A —WF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Rea r 7a �o�Ww Is' -8��• ON .K �g naa PT -q 14q HE: F14f bn o v n4 R 0. 9849 . P. 10 cn .fie X % z X > r- yr n 't r� L. i i,dFEB.27.2006 9: r. :...:. �:... r;::>'r:::•,r.,,:.,...ay.rr.'•5r'Y+rfcfrllf+,nx.r!!G''•�fi,:x,?d3:r,"ir.:Ss:Y;::k:.:�:.i'.:::<r,_�.k.ri:?c::..:..: .. . 09A%470 W Alp * :e gg �-Owull lop' e. m-� $� Alp gri rw� m14 V RK4� WOO�� a w 0in 5 1-µ, oil Y2 r•- wr r $e1 C• � ��� � � ®+TCF � �+ �¢',p. �p1r- � 71 PATRICK K. FAULKNER I.vUNTY COUNSEL OF MARIN COUNTY COUNTY COUNSEL 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 275 JACK F. Govi San Rafael, California 94903-5222 ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL (415) 499-6117 DOROTHY R. JONES FAx (415) 499-3796 CHIEF DEPUTY TOD (415) 473-2226 Ecr-$� LIA N - 1 2010 MART -ANN G. RIVERS, RENEE GIACOMINI BREWER DAVID L. ZALTSMAN MICHELE KENO NANCY STUART GRISHAM JENNIFER M. W. VUILLERMET PATRICK M. K. RICHARDSON THOMAS F. LYONS STEPHEN R.RAAB STEVEN M. PERL SHEILA SHAH LICHTBLAU EDWARD J. KIERNAN . JESSICA F, MILLS DEPUTIES COMAnUNiTY Df JEANINE MICHAELS vC.i Cr'i�EN7' ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT „ '� = December 28, 2009 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner San Rafael City Hall 1400 Fifth Avenue Post Office Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: San Rafael Airport Recreation Facility Rafael (File No's.: ZC05-01/UP05-08/ED05-18) Dear Mr. Tambornini: Our office represents the County of Marin. We write this letter regarding the above referenced project as the owner =along with the City- of an enforceable interest in the real property which is the subject of this land use application and which restricts the uses to which this property may be put. As you know, this property located at 397 400 Smith Ranch Road, commonly known as the San Rafael Airport, (APN's 155-230-10, 11, 12 and 13), is encumbered with a recorded "Declaration of Restrictions" that was executed and recorded by a prior owner of the property in favor of both the County of Marin as well as the City of San Rafael in 1983. (A copy of the Declaration of Restrictions is attached to the mailed copy of this letter for your convenience). And as stated in the staff report authored by another City of San Rafael planner with respect to this project, the current owner judicially challenged the validity of the covenants within the declaration. However, after extensive litigation in which both the City and County actively participated, the court upheld the restrictions contained in the declaration. (See the staff report authored by Raffi Boloyan, dated February 13, 2006). Like your City Attorney's Office, our office has also reviewed this declaration, and agree with their conclusion that "...it means what it says — it is a restriction on the potential land uses for the property." We would add, however, the caveat that since this declaration of restrictions specifically runs with the land, the restrictions will exist in Mr. Kraig Tambornini Re: San Rafael Airport Recreation Facility December 28, 2009 Page 2 perpetuity. It is also important to remember that at the time the Declaration of Restrictions was approved by the County, the property owner stated the effect would be to .prohibit any further development of the property..:." (See the minutes of the Marin County Board of Supervisors meeting of 11/22/1983 also attached hereto.)_Because of this, the County believes it is critical to include in any future land use approvals for this project certain conditions that might not be applicable to land use permits where the regulatory/zoning authority approving the project does not also have a proprietary interest in the property. Specifically, we would request that a copy of the Declaration be noted in, attached to and incorporated by reference in any land use approvals. In addition, a specific condition(s) should be included noting that any future uses of the structures and related facilities on the property are limited by Declaration of Restrictions. In that way, if for any reason the planned "recreational" use of this 85,700 square foot facility ceases, potential owners/lessees would be on notice of the additional restrictions on future uses of the structures and appurtenant facilities beyond those contained in the relevant general/specific plan and zoning. Finally, we would also request that any land use permit require that future permit requests be sent to this office so that the County can be assured of its right to intervene should we determine that future uses are not within the scope of the Declaration of Restrictions. Very truly yours, David Zaltsman Deputy County Counsel Encls. cc: Rob Epstein, City Attorney Supervisor Susan Adams 36554 OFFICIAL. RECORDS COUNTY OF A9AMAJ 830x,2935 RECORi,,J AT REQUEST OF AGENCY SHOWN CORDING REQUESTED BY: ' 1 LC 1 Ei 1983 ofkki Rtcmda of 04fin County, CSW, AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO! DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS 0 THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS is made and entered w y� into by and between the City of San Rafael, a municipal corporation o n� m rn (hereinafter referred to as "City"), the First National State o Bank, a national banking association (hereinafter referred h V to as "OwY;pr"), and the Courity of Marin, a politidal subdivision t- 4- 0 0 of the State of California (hereinafter referred t.o aS•"Count in connection with the following circumstances: a a 4=31 (a) City is processing at the request of Owner a tentative 0 subdivision map and final subdivision map relating to certain s.•a real property of Owner, including the real property designated ro� a. r as "PARCEL D" in the exhibit attached hereto and incorporated c aroma herein. a v (b) As a condition for approval of said tentative subdivision a T 4A (0 map and finial subdivision 'map, City has required, and Owner 4- 4- �a has agreed to, this declaration of restrictions on the terms s v) and conditions hereinafter set forth, ,¢ NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner decl.area that the real property t- designated as "PARCEL B" in the exhibit hereto shall be held, transferred, encumbered, used, sold, conveyed, leased, and occupied, subject to the restrictions and covepants herein contained, expressly and exclusively for the use and benefit of said real property and for each and every parcel of real property owned by City and by County and by each of them. 1. Limitations On Use. No use of said real property described shall be made or permitted except the following: uses. OFFICIAL. RECORDS—,gQLWTY OF MARIN s3O' 20"._.. (a) Existing uso:i consisting of an airport and related (B) public utility uscr5 as approved by thc• appt•opriate government arencies, including flood control, Sanitary sewor, gas and electric, and public safety facilities. (c) Airport and airport related uses. (d) Roadways. (e) Open space. (f) Private •ani iuho c r.-�er-r_4 ational uses. a This declaration of restrictions and the covenants contained herein are to run with the land, and for the benefit of the City and County, and each of them, and shall be Binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them, including the Successors and assigns of owner, 3> Enforcement,. Enforcement hereof shall be by proceedings at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any provision herein contained, either to restrain violation Or to recover damages, or both. In the event of litigation arising from or relating to this De- claration of Restrictions, the prevailing party therein shall be entitled to an award in a reasonable amount to be set by the Court for attorney fees and costs incurred. 4. Severability. Invalidation of any one of these coveha6ts by A judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provision hereof, anal the same shall remain in full force and effec bated: OWNER - FIRST NATIONAL STA E DANK BY. Edward L. Heil Senior Vice President STATE OF NEW JERSEY 7 sss COUNTY OF ESSEX J BE IT REMUMBERED, That on this Ninth day of November, 1983, before me, a Notary Public of New Jersey, personally appeared Edward L. .Heil, Senior Vice Pr.esi,d�e tt o'1�.,,First National State � Sank, who Y am satisfied is the, l -*P oh. .v, b, has signed the within instrument; and I have fi.estn'�naa6 known to him the 1 contents thereof, he. did a.cknoiviesfg'e.•t�� Lhe signed, s.ea.led, and delivered the same as such,o i r P"resaid; and that o o a the tlithin instrument is the vol"tary,,actt= and deed of said J ,� corporation and he has signed .54tae w�iTh,:t iu full' authority x3 vested in him. '4�•,1 _?� _2_ z � H Dated; 14" 830629'5 CITY L VLR N, •;, ayor ATTEST: by ' E M. LE N Ci C�TeY7c COUNTY = - by by 830h2935 RESOLUTION NO, (;(180 A RESOI:UTION AUTHORIZING 'PILI•; SIGNING OF AN OPTION AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTION WITH FIRST NATIONAL STATE BANK OF NI',:W JRRSIiY (Civic Center North) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows; The MAYOR. and CITY CLERK are authorized to execute, on behalf of the City of San Rafael, an option agreement and Declaration of Restriction with FIRST NATIONAL STATE BANK OF NEW JERSEY (Civic Center North) contingent upon approval by the City Attorney and the failure of any Councilmember, within 24 hours after receipt of true copies of said documents, to object to said documents. I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Courni,l of said City held on Monday the ii Pth _ t:==.s Of December , 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL.ME MBERS Bxe i n er , FrugO I i , N aVe , RuSsom & Mayor :flu 1 ryan NOES c COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT; COUNCILMF.MBERS: None JE i.. LEON SNI,NGity Clerk I #18 OPEN TIME FOR URGENCY 14ATTERS (Continued from preceding page) 0eed,. SrnJ,;t)},,Raleti :1K3 rPol t- pCojier ty .. A;rggrtRsett at:J.v..R: ctt:'ithe;dfirst_Nat;i;on.al .State„BanJC,o.f•:.New Jerse addressed the Bgdrd.'.legue'sttn.g'auliorjzafion`for execution 6f-; aeed'the Smith Ranch ALcp r : p3raQ�er. _;.;. Thi:r^.4s,triUI,on-woul:d•.prph:ibPt ,an,.y:.fur..ther.:-.deve•Io ment of the- roPerty. aqd wf'tK"the a.pproyal.;_of-Pl,ann,ing Dgpartment an ounty ounsely M/s.A�*amburu-Stockwe to authgr:)ze the ;CF`{3trmati:.to execute t:he Deed. kris:' Marin' Colrimun:ity Grille e DJstrizt _Supervis4r t.rown advised tiiat the College District is under pressure to meet a $1.3 million shortfall by leasing and/or selling ind'ian Valley College and perhaps leasing part of the College of Marin. He noted that this change of land use impacts the local com- munities of Novato and Kentfield; also, any change of classes from one campus to the other affects traffic patterns on Highway 10) and feeder streets. He suggested that representatives of the Board meet with the College Trustees to jointly assess and plan land use decisions and traffic impact. M/s Aramburu-Giacomini, to appoint Supervisors Stockwell and Brown to represent the Board in discussions with the College District, AYES: ALL Supervisor Giacomini asked that the College District be requested to consider establishing class schedules so as not to conflict with commute periods. #19 . HEARING - COUNTY CODE REVISIONS REGARDING ANIMAL CONTROL The Executive Director of the Marin Humane Society addressed the 8oard in support of a series of proposed amendments to the Animal Control Ordinance. With regard to Section 8.04.252(a) concerning transportation of animals, she explained that this new section would make it unlawful to carry any dog in the back of a vehicle unless it was contained or restrained in -some way, Testimony was received from 'several students of the Sun Valley School, San Rafael, in support of this section of the proposed=ordinance and a representative of the local Veterinarians' Association strongly supported tieeproposed legis- lation. A representative of the MaPin County Farm Bureau and a West Marin ranch owner expressed concern that this section might cause a problem with transportation of working dogs. Staff advised that the ordinance would be effective only in the unincorporated areas of the County and Highway 101, but that it was the intention of the Humane Society to seek uniformity throughout the County by requesting the cities to adopt similar legislation. In response to Board members' questions, a representative 'of the California Highway Patrol advised that they would not be able to make enforcement a top priority but only under exaggerated circumstances when a dog appeared to present a danger to itself or others, would the driver of the vehicle be stopped. Following discussion with staff regarding an exemption which would be satisfactory to the ranchersZ MIs Aramburu-Stockwell., to approve Section 8.04.052(a) amended to include the following underlined language: "No person, other than an individual actually working a dog for ranching purposes, shall transport AYES: ALL M/s Giacomini -Brown, to approve Section 8.0,4.252(b), with regard to leaving an animal in an unattended vehicle without adequate ventilation, as proposed. AYES: ALL With regard to Section 8.12.010, Permitting Dogs to Run Deer, Supervisor Stockwell advised of a possible State pre-emption and presented a nein Section 8.12.005, as follows: "Hunting. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to individuals engaged in hunting activities during the periods and in the manner which is authorized by the California Fish and Game Code and the California Administrative Code." M/s Stockwell -Giacomini, to adopt Section 8.12.010 as proposed, with. the addition of Section 8.12.005 as set forth above. AYES: ALL With regard to Section 8.12.020, Allowing Certain Dogs at Large, M/s Giacomini - Stockwell, to approve this section, as proposed. AYES: • ALL (Continued) HOS Minutes 4. 11/22/83 Page 1 of 2 Linda Levey From: Kraig Tambornini [Kraig.Tambornini@cityofsanrafael.org] Sent: Monday, November 14, 20112:56 PM To: linda@santavenetia.org Cc: Mary Hanley; SUPERVISOR SUSAN ADAMS; NONA DENNIS Subject: RE: San Rafael Airport / Soccer Complex - Letter from County Counsel I will clarify this for the staff report on the FEIR. I agree that the remainder of the comment you noted on Page 11 should be attributed to the City only. I realize that I had initially separated this comment out for review of project merits to ensure the County Counsel recommended condition was reflected in a draft document. As you note, this was not a DEIR comment and the date stamp clearly is not correct. With regard to the impact of this comment in the FEIR staff report, it is negligible for the FEIR hearing, as this is a merits issue. I have been advised that the City has concluded the recreational use restriction does not preclude structures, thus the FEIR has been required to analyze all potential impacts assuming this level of development. From: Linda Levey [mailto:linda@santavenetia,org] Sent: Monday, November 14, 20112:16 PM To: Kraig Tambornini Cc: 'Mary Hanley; SUPERVISOR SUSAN ADAMS; NONA DENNIS Subject: FW: San Rafael Airport / Soccer Complex - Letter from County Counsel Importance: High Hello Kraig Thank you for forwarding me the letter. As discussed, the letter from County Counsel is not new correspondence as you stated in your Staff Report. And it is also, as far as we can read, not a comment letter of approval. Rather, quite the opposite of the City Attorney's confirmation. And more disturbingly, this letter can not be found in the FEIR - it was not included and as far as we can tell, not even mentioned. The date on the letter is 12/28/09, after the 60 -day DEIR deadline, but is stamped as received 1 /1 /10 (were you even open that day?). We are alt in agreement what the Declaration of Restrictions says - it is the intent of the agreement where we disagree. And in our opinion, County Counsel is in agreement with us as to the intent to "prohibit any further development of the property...." And the attachment, the minutes from 1983, are ALSO new news to us - 418 OPEN TIME FOR URGENCY MATTERS (Continued from Preceding page) Deed, Smith Ranch Airport property A representative of the First National State Bank of New Jersey addressed the Board requesting authorization for execution of a deed restriction would prohibit any further development of the property and with approval of Planning Department and County Counsel, M/s Aramburu— Stockwell, to authorize the Chairman to execute the Deed. AYES: ALL On page 11 of the Staff Report, you stated: "The City Attorney and Marin County Counsel have both reviewed the declaration and 5/24/2012 Page 2 of 2 confirmed that the covenant is, as stated, a restriction on future land uses of the property; which does not preclude the level of development proposed, including construction of a recreational facility with structures." This statement, as does your conclusions on page 28, packs a punch. We, as opponents of this Project, were knocked back on our heels when we read that - and we are an informed group. It's been two years since the last Public Meeting and for the newly interested parties, like the large number of proponents we expect to see at Tuesday night's meeting, it could be a decision -maker and/or deal -breaker for them... not to mention the Planning Commission which has had two weeks to review your Staff Report. How can this Project/ Development site be wrong if City AND County Counsel are in agreement? Well, they are not! You said you will "clarify that for the PC" - How can you do that with the same level of "potentially significant impact" as the Staff Report has? And do we need to write a new comment letter to address this error or will your explanation suffice and will this and follow- up emails be in the written documentation? I am copying Supervisor Adams and other interested parties on this email. Susan - will you forward to County Counsel or shalt I? (Thank you) Thank you, Linda Levey Et Mary Hanley From: Kraig Tambornini [ma I Ito: Kra ig.Ta mborni n i@cityofsa nrafael.org] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 1:07 PM To: linda@santavenetia.org Subject: RE: San Rafael Airport / Soccer Complex - Letter from County Counsel Thanks. I must have an old email for you. As we discussed this is the Dec 2009 letter, which I must have swept up with new correspondence, and will need to clarify that for the PC. Thanks Kraig Tambornini Senior Planner From: Linda Levey [mailto:linda@santavenetia.org] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 1:03 PM To: Kraig Tambornini Subject: San Rafael Airport / Soccer Complex - Letter from County Counsel Hello Kraig - I just realized forgot to give you my email address. In case you don't have, this is it. Please forward me a copy of the 12/28/09 letter from County Counsel. Thank you, Linda 5/24/2012 MARY M. HANLEY 1515 Vendola Drive • San Rafael - California - 94903 phone: 415-499-8737 fax: 415-507-1590 _- - email: maryinmarin@comcast.net May 24, 2012 San Rafael Planning Commission c/o Mr. Kraig Tambornini City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA 94901 Re: San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Merits of the Project SCH No. 2006012125 Dear Planning Commissioners: Please accept the following comments for the project: Regarding the statement from the 3/27/12 Staff Report, "Airport safety has been a primary concern with this project, which resulting in the hiring of Mead & Hunt as an aeronautical safety consultant to evaluate this proposal." Please accept the following evidence that contradicts this statement. I have listed the three agencies responsible for safety oversight on the Project as well as quotes from pertinent information and reports from these Agencies: 1. City, 2. Mead & Hunt, and 3. CalTrans, Division of Aeronautics. City Responsibilities: • On page 30 of the 1/24/12 Staff Report, under the City of San Rafael, reads the following: The Master Use Permit currently established for the San Rafael Airport operations contains the following restrictions: • Maximum of 900 based aircraft • Use of airport is limited to based aircraft (no transient or guest aircraft are permitted to use the airport) • No flight training or commercial flight activity These three points are the totality of safety regulations regarding the Airport operations. Other issues, such as flight paths, noise emissions, number of flights, size of planes, hours of operation, and even a noise ordinance were deferred by the City Attorney and unenforced by City Staff, because of an agreement that was made with Airport Management. The Applicant CLAIMED FAA pre-emption (although we have not seen MARY M. HANLEY May 24, 2012 Page 2 of 5 any evidence of this pre-emption from the Applicant or the FAA). This deal was made before January of 2005 and remains in effect today. o From Raffi's 1/11/05 Staff Report, page 3 (attached): "Subsequently, staff and the airport operator agreed to delay any further discussions of Federal preemption until after the airport rehabilitation work had been completed. If and when these discussions occur, the issue will be brought before the Planning Commission in a public hearing. In the meantime, the airport operator has agreed that they will make every attempt to comply with the existing conditions of approval." e 3/29/04 Letter from Airport Attorney regarding pre-emption issues (attached): "When the rehabilitation has been completed and the City and its citizens are, as we believe will be the case, satisfied with the integrity of the owner's intentions and with the physical look of the airport, we can, to the extent necessary, focus on pre emption issues." • From the San Rafael Airport website: "$3 Million Airport Improvement Plan" 13 Million in physical improvements, including 40 brand new executive hangars and a newly repaved runway among much more!" Since the rehabilitation has been completed, why hasn't the Planning Commission held a public meeting to FINALLY discuss pre-emption issues, at least before accepting the application for the Soccer Complex? Despite repeated mentions of FAA requirements, there is NO comment or input from any FAA representatives. None. Why? 0 Repercussions from the Attorney/Staff/Airport Management deal resulted in the Airport enforcing a voluntary noise control and "Fly Friendly" program for their pilots. These programs, while beneficial to the Airport, are not working for the public and surrounding communities. (See attached Herbst letter and Pilot Newsletter) ® The San Rafael Planning Commission is the "ad hoc" Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) according to Raffi's email dated 1/10/06. (attached) Larry Paul, Planning Commissioner and Architect of the Complex. Although recused from hearings, he is also a member of the "ad hoc" ALUC and should know better. Bob Brown's email replying to my 10/12/06 email concerning nighttime landings is just more evidence of the lack of jurisdiction and enforcement capabilities of the City on the Airport. (email attached) MARY M. HANLEY May 24, 2012 Page 3 of 5 The proposed solar panels on the Facility's roof have not been vetted by an aviation expert as to hazards to pilots from glare, i.e. the danger of laser pointers on pilots. The stadium lights are to be vetted by DRB. Who is the aviation expert on DRB? Mead & Hunt Responsibilities (from the 4/15108 Review). 1. The 4/15/08 Safety Review is information gleaned from Raffi's 2/28/06 report. 2. The stadium lights/poles were proposed on 3/11/09, after Mead & Hunt's review and were not included for analysis. "It should be noted that the Marin County Airport Land Use Commission has a compatibility plan only for Gnoss Field, not San Rafael Airport. There are no ALUC safety criteria or policies applicable to San Rafael Airport." "A review of the preliminary design of the Airport Sports Center indicates that the project would not pose significant safety concerns provided that certain safety enhancements and design adjustments are incorporated into the final design and ultimate construction of the project." "Although avoidance of intensive uses is always preferable, a concept which may be acceptable in some situations is special risk -reduction building design. Buildings provide substantial protection from the crash of a small airplane. Special risk -reduction construction features include: • Single story height • Concrete walls • Upgraded roof strength • Limited number of windows • No skylights • Enhanced fire sprinkler system (e.g., designed in a manner that the entire system would not be disabled by an accident affecting one area) • Increased number of emergency exits beyond California Building Code requirements" Only one out of the seven features listed were absorbed into the Project. "In addition to the physical hazards to flight posed by tall objects, other land use characteristics can present visual hazards. Visual hazards include distracting lights, glare, and sources of smoke." For example, vehicle headlights on the new access road, the stadium lights, smoke from the cafe/heating operations on/in roof vents, glare from solar panels directed towards runway — Applicant also failed to take these recommendations into consideration. MARY M. HANLEY May 24, 2012 Page 4 of 5 The information provided on the proposed Airport Sports Center does not indicate the normal maximum occupancy of the facility. In order to assess the level of risk, the number of people who would occupy the overall site or any single acre of the project at any given time needs to be determined. The average usage intensity of the facility can be estimated using the following two methods:" 1. Parking and 2. California Building Codes (CBC). Mead & Hunt used the Parking Ordinance and California Building Code to determine maximum capacity. The intensity of use is very important in determining the risk so why didn't Mead & Hunt have the occupancy information from Sports City's two other locations in Sonoma County in order to have a more accurate number for their "Intensity of Use"? "Outdoor parking lot lights and outdoor soccer field lights, in particular, should be shielded so that they do not aim above the horizon. Additionally, outdoor lights should be flight checked at night to ensure that they do not create glare during landings and takeoffs." Who will do this? Mead & Hunt is/was the Consultant on the 2002 California Airport Land Use Handbook and the NEW 2011 Handbook. Why didn't Mead & Hunt catch the updated definition of "Group Recreational Use" in the new 2011 Handbook? "The results of this analysis are not intended to deem this project incompatible with airport operations, but rather to guide the final design of the project to ensure that future airspace penetrations do not occur after construction." Who and When will the question be asked of Mead & Hunt, Aviation Expert Consultant, not just for guidelines, but... "Is this Project compatible with Airport Operations, Yes or No?" It should come from the Planning Commission, ad hoc ALUC. Caltrans, Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, Responsibilities: 1. 2/24/06 Letter/Safety Report/Review on Neg Dec (attached) and touted by Raffi as safety being thoroughly vetted from this 1 '/4 pages... Really? The letter basically states: use of the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook must be utilized as a resource in the preparation of the environmental documents. (copy attached) 2. 5/1/09 Letter/Review for the DEIR (attached). Also touted as safety being thoroughly vetted from this 1 % pages... Really? The letter basically states Project conforms with State -issued Airport Permit. MARY M. HANLEY May 24, 2012 Page 5 of 5 The 1999 State Permit can be reissued through the mail without any type of inspection. It's simply a fee -paid process. There is no enforcement capability with this permit. (letter and permit attached) 3. 3/9/12 Letter from Ron Bolyard, Aviation Planner (attached) On the 1/24/12 PC meeting, toward the end, the Commission asked Staff (I'm paraphrasing here), "Who will give ultimate approval/sign off on safety issues for the proposed Project?" and Kraig responded, "CalTrans Aeronautic Division will review and approve AFTER the finished proposed project is constructed." That was the first time we had heard of CalTrans signing off on the Project. So, I put in a call and spoke with Ron Bolyard (I had his card from when I purchased my copy of the 2002 Handbook) and I asked him simply, "Why doesn't the Division review the Project BEFORE it is built?" He said to me, "I'll look into it." The next thing I knew, Kraig forwarded a copy of the 3/9/12 letter. Again, another simple 1 % page comment letter from the "Division." The major difference in this latest letter from the Division is that Mr. Bolyard ACTUALLY reviewed the proposed Project, Mead & Hunt's review, and the proposed hazard mitigation measures in the FEIR. The results from his research are found in his comment letter. In conclusion, my merits comments regarding safety oversight for the Soccer Facility are... Instead of embracing these new safety preventative measures outlined in Bolyard's letter, why are the City Attorney, Staff, Mead & Hunt Consultants, and the Applicant scrambling to vilify, minimize, and/or redefine the definition of "Group Recreational Uses?" (Marin IJ article attached) Why would the City want to approve an unsafe (as stated by The Division of Aeronautics) project? And, if this project is ultimately approved, why wouldn't the City want to make this as safe as possible? Shouldn't we all agree to take every, and all, safety precautions necessary? As the ad hoc ALUC, it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to do so. Because of the significant impacts on our creek and wildlife, the deviation from the intent of the 1983 Declaration of Restrictions, and the lack of safety oversight — along with my full support of my neighbor's comment letters (in opposition to the project), I request you deny this project as proposed. Thank you for your consideration, Mary Hanley REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION / PAGE 3 FILE NO: UP99-009/ED98-059 the San Rafael Airport Master Use Permit (UP99-009/ED98-059)." This exhibit lists each of the adopted conditions of approval and a response by staff indicating the compliance status. Over the past year, staff has received phone calls and inquiries from the public regarding the airport project on issues relating to flight paths or potential for curfews. The following is staff's analysis of that issue: Potential Federal Pre-Emption Issues During the original review of the Master Use Permit, the City received numerous public comments regarding the concern with the flight paths, noise emissions, number of flights, size of planes utilizing the airport, and hours of operation for the airport. During the City Council meeting on March 19, 2001, the City Council ultimately decided to defer any restrictions on the hours of operation for the airport and noise emissions until the one and two year annual reviews. Around that time, the City was also updating its Noise Ordinance as well as its General Plan. At the time of the Council's approval of the Master Use Permit, there was no discussion of the alleged Federal preemption, since City Staff and the airport operator were unaware at the time that Federal law may preempt local control of certain airport activities. Following the approval of the Master Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit, the airport operator vested their approval by obtaining building and grading permits and beginning the construction -of the airport rehabilitation project. Just prior to the first annual review, staff was considering an additional condition of approval establishing a baseline noise threshold for the airport. The airport contested this issue and stated that they believed that Federal law would preempt the City from directly regulating noise emissions or aircraft operations. The applicant asked for a continuance to the first annual review (September 24, 2002) in order to further discuss this issue with staff and legal counsel. Over the next year, staff met with the applicant on numerous instances to discuss this issue. The City Attorney's office was also included in these discussions and provided their recommendation on this issue. During this time, the City was completing its update to the Noise Ordinance. After research into this issue, the City Attorney's office advised staff and the City Council during consideration of the Noise Ordinance, that the City was preempted by Federal law from using the Noise Ordinance to directly regulate noise emissions from aircraft in flight. Based on this advice, the Noise Ordinance adopted by the City Council in November 2002 did not cover noise from aviation activities. A copy of the Noise Ordinance (Exhibit 8) exempts aviation uses from the Noise Ordinance. Subsequently, staff and the airport operator agreed to delay any further discussions of Federal preemption until after the airport rehabilitation work had been completed. If and when these discussions occur, the issue will be brought before the Planning Commission in a public hearing. In the meantime, the airport operator has agreed that they will make every attempt to comply with the existing conditions of approval. The issue of considering and mitigating noise impacts from the airport was also addressed in the recently adopted General Plan 2020. The recently adopted General Plan 2020 includes a policy (Noise Policy N-7 Airport/Heliport), which states: "to the extent allowed by Federal and state law, consider and mitigate noise impact of any changes in facilities or operation that require use permit mitigations or other land use permit at the San Rafael Airport in North San Rafael and at heliport in East San Rafael. " In regards to the City's ability to regulate the existing Use Permit for the Airport or add any new conditions, the City Attorney's office continues to recommend the following: C ��7f KUHN & LEVY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Richard R. Kuhn 35 Mitchell Blvd., Ste. 14 Robert M. Levy RECEIVED San Rafael, CA 94903 Telephone: 415 472 1000 MAR 3 0 2004 E -Mail: kuhn.levy@sbeglobal.net Facsimile: 415 472 1009 CiTYOFSMRAFAEL Web Page: kuluilevy.com PLqxw March 29, 2004 l3ob Brown, Community Development Director City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Re: 397-400 Smith Ranch Road / Master. Use Permit / Pre emption Issues Dear Mr. Brown: The owners and operators of the airport are, as I told the Planning Commission at the last meeting, very pleased with their progress to date on the rehabilitation of the facilities as well as with the very substantial reduction in community expression of objection to ongoing operation. This tells us that we are making good progress not only on the ground, but also in our efforts to restore (or perhaps create for the first time) a level of credibility and community support which has historically been minimally observable. The airport wants to be a good citizen and wants to have a credible reputation of doing what it can for the community as well as not doing things that are adverse to the best interests of the community, understanding that airports are not necessarily the most popular use of land no matter how operated and improved. With that in mind, and having heard your comments about pre emption at the last meeting,'the owners have decided that it would be in the best interests of this ongoing effort to complete the rehabilitation while avoiding acrimony by way of making a commitment to the City. That is the objective of this letter. Although we certainly are not adverse to the City unilaterally removing conditions it agrees are pre empted, we -will not force the issue at this time. We will not, without first giving the City written notice, intentionally or knowingly violate or intentionally or knowingly permit the violation of any of the Use Permit conditions, whether pre empted or not, or whether the subject of disagreement as to whether or not they are preempted. When the rehabilitation has been completed and the City" and its citizens are, as we believe will be the case, satisfied with the integrity of the -owner's intentions and with File 9. UP99-009/ED98-059 Title: Letter from Robert Levy, 3/29/04 Exhibit: 6-1 the physical loop of the airport, we can, to the extent necessary, focus on pre emption issues. Our anticipation would be that, if and when, following completion of our ongoing efforts, the airport sees it in its best interests to proceed in a manner which is not consistent with a Use Permit condition which we believe to be unenforceable due to pre emption we will let the City know in writing and request removal of the condition. If the City disagrees on the pre emption of the subject condition we can then select a forum for resolution or face and defend enforcement proceedings. In the meantime we will stay the course, so to speak, in our ongoing effort to be a'good neighbor. We would like to extend our belated appreciation to Raffi for his willingness to Appear at the planning commission hearing notwithstanding the birth of his daughter. His reliable knowledge of the project and its current status provided an invaluable aid to the Commission, the applicant, and to interested citizens and was appreciated. Very Truly Yours, .1� Robert M. Levy cc: client File #f: UP99-009/ED98-059 Title: Letter from Robert Levy, 3/29/04 Exhibit: 662 January 5, 2005 Mr. Raiff Boloyan Senior Planner City of San Rafael Dear Mr. Boloyan: As you know we have been working very hard over the last three years to significantly improve San Rafael Airport in the areas ofphysical appearance, pilot services, flight safety, and neighborhood friendly flight policies. We look forward to discussing our efforts and positive results at the January l Ph Use Permit Review. One area in particular where we have seen great progress is our Fly Friendly program. This refers to the joint efforts of the airport management and pilots to develop and implement neighbor friendly flight policies. Our efforts include the following: • New pilot briefing and info sheet describing recommended flight procedures • Taxiway signage describing recommended flight procedures •-Aeriodic letter and email reminders to pilots about recommended flight procedures • Self policing by pilots and management when flight violations are observed • Prompt response to neighbor complaints, including the following: ■ Speak with neighbor to get details of complaint ■ Investigate incident using surveillance equipment and pilot interviews ■ _Speak with pilot about how to Fly Friendly in future ■ Follow up wrth neighbor about results or investigation and action taken ■�. Maintain detailed log of each incident ® Fi a ormal complaint with FAA if pilot violates FAA regulations (we are pre-empted by federal law from taking any disciplinary action ourselves) ` As a direct result ofthese efforts, we have greatly minimized flight complaints from the surrounding neighborhoods. Over the last 18 months we received only 17 complaints total, less than one per month. 10 ofthese complaints involved no infraction. Only 3 complaints involved confirmed infractions. This record is reflective that our efforts outlined above are working. To put it all in perspective, the FAA estimates that Cmoss Field in Novato has 135,000 annual flight operations. Their estimate for San Rafael Airport is only 9000, meaning we are 15x less busy than our neighboring airport to the north, which itself is considered a very small US airport. Of our 9000 estimated annual flight oDerdtious, less than 1/10th of 1% have venerated any complaint at ail, and fess than 1/5e of 11% have involved confirmed infractions. We will never be able to eliminate noise complaints entirely. We are however committed to continuing our Fly Friendly flight policies that to date have achieved the strong results outlined above. sincerely, Bob Herbst San Rafael Airport Manager File #: Up99-009/ED98-059 Title: Letter from Bob Herbst 1/OS/OS Exhibit: 7 PLOT NEWRETTE"PIIING 2004 I. FLIGHT PROCEDURES REMINDER We have received several neighborhood complaints about flight activity at San Rafael Airport. The complaints fall into two main categories: 1. Pilots performing run -ups along the over -run., 2. Pilots flying, over Contempo Marin Mobile Home Park. Conditions 9 and 11 of our Use Permit with- the City specifically forbid both of these activities (see attached conditions). Repeat violators are subject to eviction. The airport's right to operate may also be jeopardized. Please also note that condition 5f of the Use Permit prohibits gU non - based aiteraft from flying into the airport. Many of you have asked about flight instructors, mechanics, friends, etc. Unfortunately per the Use Permit only based aircraft can use the field. Finally, condition 10 is new as of 2001, and it imposes a significant enforcement burden on the airport management. We are required to investigate complaints -.and if a violation occurred, provide the offender's N number to the City. If you witness improper flight practices, please talk to the pilot in question or writedown the N number and contact us for follow-up. Our goal is to eliminate offensive behavior through education. ''Please respect our residential neighbors" by Flying Friendly. PROPER FLIGHT PROCEDURES . Run -ups should occur at the compass rose only (intersection of taxiway and runway), in order to minimize.noise impacts on Santa Venetia residents across the creek. Take -offs and landings on runway 4 are generally discouraged due to noise impacts on Contempo Marin Mobile .Home Park When pilot safety and/or weather conditions dictate using runway 4, pilots are directed to fIyAROUND the hill (not over), on the side awayfrom Contempo.Marin. The properprocedure is tofollow the railroad tracks. II. MASTER PLAN CONSTRUCTION UPDATE The last of the new hangars are now complete. The remaining Master Plan work should be completed by year's end, including: • Paving and landscaping of entry circle, driveway, and guest parking area. • New wash rack with power sprayer and vacuum. • New caretaker and security guard residences to replace existing trailers. • Airport administration offices and lounge in big hangar at entry (needs City approval) • Clean-up. and manicuring of central taxiway area where utility trenching -was done. Exhibit 3 — Attachment 5-1 From: Raffi Boloyan [mailto:Raffi.Boloyan@ci.san-rafael.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:04 AM To: linda@abacusmarin.com Subject: RE: San Rafael Airport - Soccer Complex Project Thanks. I sure did have a good New Year's as well as a little vacation In response to you questions: 1. The Airport Land Use Commission is not a City organization, but rather a Commission that is part of the County of Marin. The Marin County web site includes information on this Commission. There is also a number listed there that you can call for more info. httD://www.co.marin.ca. us/deDts/bs/members/mcbds/Brdaaae.cfm?Brd I D=3 2. The Airport Commission does not have review authority or jurisdiction over private airports. The Airport Commission has an airport land use plan that covers the public airports in the County and the only public airport is the Gnoss Field in Novato. Therefore, they have not reviewed this project. 3. Land use compatibility for this project will be reviewed by the City's Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council. As you may already be aware, the project was also referred to California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, for their review and comment. It sounds like you may have seen their correspondence in the project file. This Division has review of private airports such as this and they review projects with respect to airport -related noise and safety impacts and regional aviation land use planning issues. This Division also has the technical expertise in areas of airport operations safety and airport land use compatibility. If you haven't seen their comments, you are more than welcome to come down to view these in the project file. The letter is one dated June 20, 2005 from Sandy Hesnard, of Caltrans - Division of Aeronautics. Hope that helps Raffi Raffi Boloyan CITY OF SAN RAFAEL Senior Planner COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION P.O. BOX 151560 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94915-151560 TEL: (415) 485-3095 FAX: (415) 485-3184 -----Original Message ----- From: Linda Levey [mailto:linda@abacusmarin.com] Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 4:16 PM To: Raffi Boloyan Subject: San Rafael Airport - Soccer Complex Project Hi Raffi. I hope you had a Happy New Year! I have a couple of questions concerning the Soccer Complex at San Rafael Airport that I hope you can help me with: Who exactly are the members of the Airport Land Use Commission? Have they reviewed this project regarding land use safety issues? If so, how can I review their report/findings? I'm inquiring because I researched/reviewed the report from the Division of Aeronautics and, in doing so, found out their findings include Airway and F_yway issues only and NOT Land Use Safety issues. I was told by Dan Gargas (DOT.DA) that was usually handled by the City Airport Land Use Commission. Thank you for you help, Mari �t-awt.elu 1515 Vendola Drive San Rafael • California • 94903 phone - 415.499.8737 fax - 415.507.1590 e-mail - linda(apoagil.com From: Bob Brown [mal Ito: Bob. Brown@ci.san-rafael.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:37 PM To: linda@lindalevey.com Subject: RE: San Rafael Airport Mary: I double checked the Airport Use Permit and it does not limit the hours of landings or the size of planes (which are practically limited by runway length since the concern has always been about jets). I also checked on the state and federal preemptions related to private airports. The FAA is responsible for noise violations and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics is responsible for issues related to flight path (height of planes, direction, etc.). I will contact the airport management and note the complaint (without names). BB From: Bob Brown [ma ilto:Bob. Brown @ci.san-rafael.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:04 AM To: linda@lindalevey.com Subject: RE: San Rafael Airport Mary: The City is preempted from dealing with planes in the air by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). However, I will check with Raffi Boloyan, who is the planner that's been responsible for the Airport Use Permit, to check re: night flights and get back to you. I'm certain that there are no size restrictions on planes using the Airport, but only planes that are hangared at the airport can land there. I'll also be happy to discuss this incident with the Airport management, without naming names. Raffi is in meetings this morning, but I'll get back to you when I speak with him. BB From: Linda Levey [mailto:linda@lindalevey.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:10 AM To: Bob Brown Subject: San Rafael Airport Good Morning Mr. Brown, I live on Las Gollinas Creek on the "other" Vendola Drive. Last night, around 8:45pm, I noticed in the distance, out over San Pablo Bay, a well -lit -up plane flying low from north to south. At first, I thought it was one of those big Coast Guard rescue helicopters doing a rescue or something over the Bay. I was pretty startled when I noticed it turned west and eventually landed at the San Rafael Airport. It is my understanding that: 1. There is a limit to the size plane allowed to use the runway and 2. There's no night flying allowed out of that airport. I've noticed this plane before, as well as a new big -loud seaplane. They just seem to stick out like a sore thumb compared to the other planes I'm accustomed to seeing. Due to present circumstances (lawsuit, etc.), I'm somewhat reluctant to call over there to inquire about this; which I believe is... protocol? Maybe this was a one-time occurrence; maybe not. None -the -less, it startled me enough to email you this morning and bring it to your attention. Any suggestions for avoiding this from occurring again? I would appreciate an email or phone call at your earliest convenience. Thank you, Mari itavulEU DEPARTMENT OFTRANSP( 1'ATION - DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S.* 1120 N STREET " P. 0. BOX 942873 Flex your pmverl SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 Be energy ejfldentl PHONE (916) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 LETTER 1 (continued) TTY (916) 651-6827 February 24, 2006 Mr. Raff Boloyan San Rafael Planning Division P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Dear Mr. Boloyan: Re: City of Sari Rafael Negative Declaration for the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility; SCH# 2006012125 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division), reviewed the above -referenced document with tespect to airport -related noise and safety impacts and regional aviation land use planning issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Division has technical expertise in the areas of airport operations safety and airport land use compatibility. We are a funding agency for airport projects and we have permit authority for public and special use aii-ports and heliports. The Division considered the proposal in an. earlier letter dated .Pune 20, 2005. The following comments are offered with respect to the Negative Declaration. The proposal is for the construction of a recreational facility on a 16.6 -acre portion of San Rafael Airport. San Rafael Airport operates with a Special -Use .Airport Permit issued by the Division. The Division's prior and current Aviation Safety Officers for Marin County, Dan Gargas and Patrick Miles, respectively, have evaluated the proposal and determined it should not require amending the Special -Use Airport Permit and does not appear to impact the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. Please note; the applicant should be advised that the outdoor baseball field backstop and perimeter fence as depicted on page. 32 of the Negative Declaration also must not penetrate FAR Part 77, 7:1 Transitional Surface. For questions concerning any of the above issues, please contact Patrick Miles, at (916) 654-5376. According to the Negative Declaration, the applicant shall also incorporate the guidelines in the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Advisory Circular 150(5370-2E; Operational Safety on Airports, during construction of the proposed project. We concur. In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21096, the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) must be utilized as a resource in the preparation of environmental documents for projects within an airport land use compatibility plan boundaries or if such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of an airport. The Handbook is a resource that should be applied to all public use airports. Although San Rafael Airport is not a public use airport, we did consider density levels as recommended in the Handbook. The project does not appear to exceed the Handbook density guidelines. "Caltrans improves inability across C.alifanda" PAGE C&R -56 b4r. Raffi Boloyan - February 24, 2006 Page 2 LETTER I (continued) These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Division with respect to airport -related noise and safety impacts and regional airport land use planning issues. We advise you to contact our District 4 Office 4 in Oakland at (510) 286-4444 concerning surface transportation issues. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please call me at (916) 654-5314. Sincerely, Original Signed. by SANDY HESNARD Aviation. Enviromnental Planner c: San Rafael Airport "Caltrans improves mobility across California" PAGE C&R -57 DEPARTNTENT OF"I'RANSPOi:..;-*AT1ON DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S.#40 1120 N STREET P. 0. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 PHONE (916) 654-4959 F.AX (.916) 653-9531 TTY (916) 651-6827 May 1, 2009 Mr. Kraig Tamborini City of San Rafael Planning Division P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Dear Mr. Tamborini: RECEIVED my 12- 210t) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 4 � i r ler VOLlY pOtve!'l i32 Cg81 � e�OietLLl LETTER 1 City of San Rafael's Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility; SCIS# 2006012125 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division); .reviewed the above -referenced document with respect to airport -related noise and sal ety impacts and regional aviation land use planning issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.). The Division has technical expertise in the areas of airport operations safety and airport land use compatibility. We are a funding agency for airport projects and we have permit authority for public and special use airports and heliports. The Division commented on the prior Negative Declaration for the proposal in the enclosed letter dated February 24, 2006. The following continents are offered with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The proposal is for the construction of a recreational facility on a 9..1 -acre portion of the San Rafael Airport. The facility will consist of a 38 -foot tall, 85,700 square -foot metal recreational building housing indoor fields and courts, a 14,400 square foot.mezzanine level with spectator seating, offices, food and beverage. service, arcade and meeting rooms, two outdoor fields with exterior lighting, landscaping, parking, and fencing improvements. As discussed in the DEiR, Sail Rafael Airport operates with a Special -Use Airport Permit issued by the Division. Caltrans is the primary State agency responsible for permitting airports and heliports. Our mandated process is further described in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 21, Section 3534(6). From the information provided, it does not appear that the proposal will affect the State airport permit. The new construction projects, however; must meet or exceed. the rninimurn design standards for a perrmitted airport, as specified in the CCR, Title 21, Article 3, "Design Standards, Airports Only." State Public Utilities Code Section 21659 prohibits structural hazards near airports. As discussed in DE1R, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may require a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. Form 7460-1 is available at http://fonns.faa.gov/forms/faa74.60-1,pdf, The guidance in the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-2E, Operational Safety on Airports during Construction, should also be incorporated into the project design in order to identify any permanent or temporary construction -related impacts including cranes. "Calb•aLLs improves mobility across California" PACE C&R -54 1-1 1-2 Mr. Kraig Tamborini May 1, 2009 Page 2 LETTER 1 (continued) Mitigation Measure (MM) Haz-1 states that the "intensity of use" will be restricted to a maximum of 200 people per single acre or "at a minimum" incorporate additional risk -reduction building design features into the design of the recreational building. MM Haz-2 addresses FAR Part 77 concerns. For questions concerning the special -use airport permit criteria or FAR Part 77, please contact the Division's Aviation Safety Officer for Marin County, Patrick Miles, at (916) 654-5376. These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Division with respect to airport-xelated noise and safety impacts and regional airport land use planning issues. We advise you to contact our District 4 Office 4 concerning surface transportation. issues. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please call nye at (916) 654-5314, Sincerely, SANDY HESNARD Aviation Environmental Planner Enclosure ct State Clearinghouse, San Rafael Airport, Marin County ALUC "Caltrans improves inability across California" 1_3 PACE C&R -55 ICOR A SPECIAL -USE AIRPORT Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 21662, the California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program, hereby issues this corrected Airport Permit No. Mrn-005 for the: SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT 397 Smith Ranch Road San Rafael, California Latitude: 381, 00` 55 " N. Longitude: 122° 31' 20 " W. Owned by: San Rafael Airport, LLC c/o Joe and Haidy Shekou 2173-D Francisco Boulevard Sar► Rafael, California 94901 This corrected permit reflects a change in name and ownership of the airport and supersedes the permit dated November 5, 1990. This permit is subject to the following . conditions: 1. The airport is to be maintained in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Sections 3525 through 3560. 2, The designated traffic pattern is as follows: • Right traffic for Runway 22. • Left tragic for Runway 04. f • 1000 feet AG L. 3. The airport is approved for day and night use. 4. A variance is granted to the width of primary surface due to a drainage ditch. . .. ,,... •.:}•a % rye:;;�., • ;t . d Page 2 5. A variance is granted to the 7:1 transitional surface which is penetrated*by the dike to the north. 6. A variance is granted for a reduced runway length of 2140 feet. 7. A variance is granted to the 20:1 approach surface for Runway 04 for a hill that is 4,500 feet to the southwest. 8. White "Rs" are to be displayed on each end of the runway to denote the airport is privately owned and is not open to the general public. The physical status of this special -use facility is described below: Runway 4/22 ® Physical length of the runway is 2140 feet. • Runway is lighted. This permit shall remain in effect so long as the airport meets the conditions under which the permit was issued or until action is taken by the Department to suspend, := revoke, correct, or amend the permit pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code or the California- Code of Regulations. i The airport's owner shall apply to the Department for an Amended/Corrected Airport Permit prior to any physical or operational changes at the airport which affect the conditions or physical status above or for a change in airport ownership. .., Failure to maintain the airport in accordance with the conditions of this permit is a violation of Public Utilities Code Section 21666 and is punishable as a misdemeanor. A,49,4.k_"j -4t- MARLIN BECKWITH, Program Manager Aeronautics Program Departm nt of Transportation State of California March 25, 1999 Date •Yui1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR.. Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S.#40 1120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 PHONE (916) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY 711 March 9, 2012 Mr. Kraig Tamborini City of San Rafael Planning Division P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Dear Mr. Tamborini: The San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility 0 Flexyourpowerl Be energy efftlentl The California Department of Transportation (Department), Division of Aeronautics (Division), reviewed the above referenced project's Draft Environmental Document and sent comments in a letter dated May 1, 2009 and also the Negative Declaration in a letter Dated February 24, 2006. Since those reviews, the Division updated the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) in 2011. State law requires airport land use commissions to guide land use decisions near public use airports. Because the San Rafael Airport is not a public use airport, it lacks this benefit. Please see the following for new Division guidance regarding this project. The proposal is for the construction of a recreational facility adjacent to the San Rafael Airport. The facility will consist of a 38 -foot tall recreational building housing indoor fields and courts with spectator seating, offices, food and beverage service, arcade and meeting rooms, two outdoor fields with exterior lighting, landscaping, parking and fencing improvements. The project is located in Safety Zones 3 & 5 according to the updated Handbook. In these safety zones, the Handbook recommends prohibiting group recreational uses. In general, society gives special attention to protection of children. Special consideration should be given to facilities that cater to children such as recreation and sports facilities. We ask the City of San Rafael consider this new information in future decisions regarding this project. The proposed parking area south of the recreational facility adjacent to the San Rafael Airports' runway violates Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77.17 obstruction standards. Vehicles using this parking area may penetrate the 7:1 transitional surface and would be defined as obstruct ons.ta a r.nay gation. _.According to. FAR Part 77.17,, an, existing_9bject, including a mobile object, is, and a future object would be an obstruction to air navigation if it of greater height than any of the following heights or surfaces: FAR Part 77.17 section (a)(5) The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any imaginary surface established under FAR Parts 77.19, 77.21, or 77.23, and section (b)(3) 10 feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road. New construction projects must meet or exceed the minimum design standards for a permitted airport, in "Caln•ans improves nrobilio, across California" Mr. Kraig Tamborini March 9, 2012 Page 2 . accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Article 3, "Design Standards, Airports Only." Vehicles using the row of parking closest to the runway, taller than 5 feet will be an obstruction to air navigation. Failure to maintain obstruction free airspace may negatively impact the airport's permit and use of the airport. Sincerely, Original signed by RON BOLYARD, Aviation Planner Office of Aviation Planning c: Marin County ALUC, San Rafael Airport "Caltrans improm mobility across California" Hearing on San Rafael sports complex delayed due to Caltrans letter By Jessica Bernstein -Wax Marin Independent Journal Posted: 04/01/2012 04:18:00 PM PDT The runway at the San Rafael Airport can be seen as a straight line of pavement running through a green field in San Rafael, Calif. on Saturday, March 31, 2012. The private airport is situated near McInnis Park Golf Club, foreground. (IJ photo/Alan Dep) San Rafael officials have delayed a hearing on a proposed $6 million to $8 million sports complex with indoor soccer fields at San Rafael Airport after receiving a letter from Caltrans that raised concerns about the project site. In a March 9 letter, Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics asked San Rafael to review the agency's new land use planning handbook for airports. "The project is located in Safety Zones 3 & 5 according to the updated handbook," Aviation Planner Ron Bolyard said in the letter. "In these safety zones, the handbook recommends prohibiting group recreational uses. "In general, society gives special attention to protection of children," the letter continues. "Special consideration should be given to facilities that cater to children such as recreation and sports facilities." Kraig Tambornini, senior planner for San Rafael, said city consultant Mead & Hunt has been meeting with Caltrans and is working on a response to the letter. San Rafael officials delayed a Planning Commission hearing on the project's merits scheduled for March 27 so they could review the letter, he said. That meeting has been rescheduled for May 15. "At this point it would be information that goes to the Planning Commission with a staff recommendation," Tambornini said of the city's response to the letter. "The project will still go forward." Tambornini noted that the Caltrans handbook doesn't technically apply to San Rafael Airport because it's a private rather than public or municipal facility. However, the city has been following Caltrans' guidelines by choice. "We don't have to, but we need something to evaluate the situation with," he said. San Rafael Airport LLC's plan to build a 35 -foot -tall building along Gallinas Creek with two indoor soccer fields, a dance and gymnastics training compound, a cafe that sells wine and beer, locker rooms and offices had been on hold for about two years when it was revived in 2011. In addition to the indoor facility, the applicant also plans to construct two outdoor sports fields — one lighted — with synthetic "field turf' instead of grass and two parking lots with almost 300 spaces. An estimated 700 to 1,000 patrons plus 12 full-time employees would use the complex daily from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 9 a.m. to midnight Friday and Saturday. Outdoor soccer would likely be played until 10 p.m. The proposed recreational building is about 315 feet from the edge of the runway, Tambornini said. Bob Herbst, the airport's manager, said the Caltrans letter mischaracterizes the project as "a stadium or group recreational use," designations that carry a much higher density of people than his project. He added that many youth recreational facilities are next to airports — and Marin County desperately needs more playing fields. "Bottom line is you are more likely to get hurt driving to the airport than you are playing sports at the airport," Herbst said in an email. "I've managed this airport for 15 years and have a 7- and 11 -year-old who will use this facility extensively. I would not build this sports complex if it wasn't 100 percent safe." But Robert Dobrin, president of the Santa Venetia Neighborhood Association — which has been critical of the project— said the letter raises important safety issues. "You probably don't need a degree in planning to know that runways and children don't mix any better than water and electricity mix," Dobrin said. "We've been very consistent that we don't think (the project's) safe either." Contact Jessica Bernstein -Wax at iernstein-wax@marinij.com or via Twitter at http://twitter.com/'bwax. To: City of San Rafael From: Santa Venetia Community Planning Group RE: Proposed Soccer Complex at the San Rafael Airport May 24, 2012 To Whom It May Concern, The Santa Venetia Community Planning Group is urging the San Rafael Planning Commission to reconsider allowing the construction of a Soccer Complex (San Rafael Sports Facility) at the San Rafael Airport. The Santa Venetia Community and many others have raised several concerns on impacts the Soccer Complex could have on safety and natural resources at and immediately adjacent to the proposed soccer Complex. The Santa Venetia Community recently (2011) conducted a needs survey of local residents to identify community values and priority needs. This information is being used to guide future development of a Santa Venetia Community Plan. One of the top values identified was preservation of open space and character of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. The Soccer Complex would greatly diminish view sheds of the neighborhood and greatly diminish character of the neighborhood. One of our greatest concerns is the impact the Soccer Complex could have on safety of local residents and users of the Complex. In addition to the direct safety hazard of placing a recreational facility at an airport, recent scientific literature suggest a correlation between increased lead levels in children in the vicinity of airports. A recent study published in Environmental Health Perspectives (July 13, 2011) provides the first evidence that lead levels in children are higher in the vicinity of airports. From Science News ( July 14, 2011) http://www sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/332463/`title/Airports/oE2%80%99 leaden fallout may t aint some kids "People who live near airports serving small planes are exposed to lead from aviation fuel. A new study links an airport's proximity to slightly elevated blood -lead levels in children from area homes." "Environmental health scientists and statisticians at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment in Durham, N.C., used state records to identify children who had been tested for blood - lead levels, and mapped their residences in relation to regional airports in several counties. Then the researchers correlated lead concentrations in those kids with the distance of their homes from those airports." "Children 7 and under who lived within 1,000 meters (six -tenths of mile) of an airport — and especially within 500 meters — had higher lead levels, generally, than youngsters living beyond that distance. This association remained "robust" even after adjusting for a host of other factors that might affect the likelihood a child would be exposed to lead, such as living in an older home (which might have lead- based paint), observes study leader Marie Lynn Miranda." The study was published in Environmental Health Perspectives (July 13, 2011). We ask that you please take into account concerns of local community members and related safety and environmental issues when you review the merits of this project. Sincerely, Giselle Block Member, Santa Venetia Planning Group. May 23, 2012 TO: Members of the San Rafael Planning Commission RE: Proposed soccer fields at San Rafael Airport I write to support the many neighborhood and environmental organizations who have voiced opposition to the proposed soccer complex at the San Rafael Airport. As a soccer fan and former soccer league parent volunteer, I favor soccer fields as a general principle. However, after reviewing the evidence, I believe that this proposal is ill- conceived for a variety of strong reasons. Among these are the disruptions to quality of life for nearby residents; disruptions and hazards for wildlife (despite supposed "mitigation" remedies); location on a flood plain in a time when seas are predicted to rise; and perilous proximity to small airplane traffic. If more soccer facilities are needed, and if such facilities need to be private and for fee, why not look to areas needing development, such as the long -vacant former Yardbirds site in San Rafael? Surely there must be even more such potential sites in these lean economic times. My family and I have lived in a quiet neighborhood near the airport for 25 years; some neighbors have lived here much longer. Throughout this neighborhood's history, tranquility has been a prominent feature, notwithstanding occasional overflights by local aircraft. The existing ball fields provide some noise, but it largely abates in the evenings. The location of the proposed facilities harbingers an end to this relative serenity. Proposed mitigations provide little assurance that residents would continue to enjoy the neighborhood's historic quietude. This project would change life as local residents have known it for many decades. Experts from prominent environmental organizations have made the case that this facility would have adverse effects on native wildlife, including the endangered clapper rail. The EIR provides nothing of substance to suggest that it would not. At the prior Planning Commission meeting, a consultant attempted to parry concerns about rail habitat. First, he maintained that rails in the area would simply move to the perimeters of their habitat during construction, eventually returning upon the end of construction (he said he would do the same if pile drivers visited his neighborhood). On return, he averred, the birds would stay below grade level to avoid lighting, noise, etc., suggesting that life would be tolerable after a while. (It should perhaps be noted that these rails do, if conditions permit, sometimes venture out above grade level, as I have observed on walks around the Gallinas Creek area.) Second, the consultant said, species are adaptable, as witnessed by the peregrine falcons nesting under the Bay Bridge. Despite the consultant's attempts to put a tolerable face on the situation, the analogy did not measure up. It is enough here to note that (1) even under the best -case scenario painted by the consultant, the clapper rail experience would be no picnic and would be significantly disrupted on a regular basis during and after construction; and (2) that what may be good enough for the peregrine in a pinch (and this, too, is dubious) is by no means necessarily good for the rail (a very different sort of feathered critter). Comparing falcons and rails may be slightly more off -kilter than the oft -derided comparison of apples and oranges. Moreover, the consultant said nothing about the stress and fright that construction and periodic shouting, etc., during games would visit on these threatened denizens of the marshland, even if they were to hunker down and tough it out. In sum, the consultant's best efforts fell woefully short of target. On the other hand, a substantial aggregation of groups dedicated to environmental preservation has argued forcefully against the wisdom of building this facility in the proposed location. In considering the ecological merits of the project, I would urge the Commission to weigh the comparatively frail assurances of the project consultants against the expertise of the many groups in opposition including the Council on Biological Diversity, the Marin Audubon Society, and the Marin Conservation League. Inasmuch as the proposed project lies on a flood plain, many might wonder why it is even under consideration. While the applicant is on record as strongly supporting development of waterland property, most forward -thinking people and agencies are looking at ways to preserve such natural assets while drawing back in the face of the sea -level rises expected by a robust consensus of researchers. This project would place a large structure on the flood plain, a prospect that prompts several legitimate and compelling concerns. For example, who would build and maintain the infrastructure needed to keep out the rising tidal waters and probable storm surges? Who would monitor the viability of such infrastructure? If, as history suggests, the project might serve as a Trojan Horse giving birth to further re -zoning, what are the potential implications of disaster under some other eventual use involving a large human presence? At the very least, such a project promises to cast a public image of San Rafael and Marin County as practitioners of ill-advised, chancy development decisions in this age of global warming and expanding oceans. Lastly, there is the grand elephant in the room—the prospect of constructing a soccer facility, including indoor and outdoor fields, adjacent to a working airport. Proponents argue that such arrangements exist elsewhere around the country. In itself, that is not a convincing argument. Because some people do stupid things, that's no reason for us to copy them (or so our parents told us). Small plane crashes occur fairly frequently, as we know from news reports. Crashes during takeoff or landing are inevitable at such facilities, and pilot control of aircraft during crises is unpredictable. We also know, from the recent letter sent by the Caltrans Aeronautics Division, that situating playing fields so close to an airstrip violates current state standards for public safety. Approving such a situation would involve, at the least, ethical and moral, if not legal, liability for decision -makers. If a proposal such as the one under consideration were found meritorious, it would mean the decision -makers had chosen to disregard not only a best practices criterion but a basic threshold of protection for both children and adults. In sum, this project would provide people with resources a place to play soccer for fee, to drink beer, etc. It would provide the owner of record a game -changer in the enduring efforts to break the covenants agreed upon by city and county so many years ago. In the bargain, it would achieve also the following: 1. It would change significantly the quality of life in adjacent neighborhoods. 2. It would, by testimony of environmental groups across the spectrum, adversely impact resident species, endangered and otherwise. 3. It would make our local government a model of unwise and destructive land -use decisions in an era of climate change. 4. It would demonstrate conscious government action in opposition to prevailing public standards of safety with respect to air traffic and recreational activities. No amount of "mitigation" (while that may permit technical approval of sub -standard and/or harmful conditions) will serve to overcome the flaws that pervade this proposal or to construct an edifice of merit capable of sustaining it. As I said at the outset, I like soccer, and my children played in San Rafael Youth Soccer. I was a volunteer, working to maintain the fields. I would like to see ample facilities for youth soccer. But this proposed project makes no sense. Imagine that someone were to propose constructing an airfield half a football field away from, say, the playing fields at San Rafael High, Davidson, or Pickleweed. Is there anyone who would approve such a project? Such action would be unthinkable — one would hope. In like manner, it should be unthinkable to situate athletic fields alongside an existing airfield. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Donald Johns Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc. 7 Mount Lassen Drive, Suite B-250 San Rafael, CA 94903 Telephone: (415) 491-9600 Facsimile: (415) 680.1538 E-mail: info@KHE-inc.com Mr. Kraig Tambornini Planning Division Community Development Department City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue PO Box 151560 San Rafael, California 94915-1560 SUBJECT: Merits Comments SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT RECREATIONAL FACILITY 397-400 SMITH RANCH ROAD, SAN RAFAEL,-CALIFORNIA, San Rafael Airport Soccer Facilities Dear Mr. Tamborini: The City should reject the proposed rezoning and Soccer facility because it will directly and adversely impact special status species in the adjacent marshlands, poses undue risks to the users and environment, and will be an economic loss to the City and County. The proposed project occupies a site that is historic bay land, surrounded on three sides by intertidal channels, and is at site grade comparable to the adjacent. marshland. This proposed project should be considered as a coastal development project, and rejected as unnecessary on that basis. County, State and Federal planning guidelines for coastal Baylands require consideration of the costs and impacts of necessary infrastructure improvement. These costs, when considered in the climate change context of Sea Level Rise will exceed the potential value of the project for the City. The clear economic trend is the basis for regional, national and international movement toward policy of coastal retreat. I believe a better value to the community would be realized by restoring functional wetland. Returning this parcel to bay land would reduce the infrastructure burden on the county, provide flood storage capacity for adjacent communities, and expand valuable habitat for resident endangered species. Sincerely, Rachel Z. Kamman, PE Principal Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc. KHE Inc. 1/1 GALLINAS WATERSHED COUNCIL 68 Mitchell Blvd., Suite 240, San Rafael, CA 94903 The Mission of the Gallinas Watershed Council is to; Connect the people who live and work in the Las Gallinas Valley with their creek and watershed; Advance local conservation action, and Promote watershed restoration, protection and education. Mr. Kraig Tambornini Planning Division Community Development Department City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue PO Box 151560 San Rafael, California 94915-1560 Subject: Airport Soccer Complex Merits Hearing May 29, 2012 Dear Planning Commission: The Gallinas Watershed Council has given written and verbal testimony before on the significant flaws of this project. As a watershed -centered public interest group, we cannot support this proposal. The proposed zoning modification and soccer complex pose unacceptably high risks to the users and the adjacent wetlands, and contains large hidden community infrastructure costs. We request that the City reject the San Rafael Airport zoning modification and soccer complex request. Climate Change/Sea Level Rise With Climate change and sea level rise looming, it makes zero sense to put additional infrastructure, and children, in harm's way. As the BCDC map (attached) clearly shows, this area will be under water by mid-century, unless there is significant and costly and ever-increasing levee repair and maintenance. It makes no economic sense to build in the path of future, unquestionable flooding. In their letter to SR, the County has clearly stated that they will take no responsibility for maintaining the levees under their jurisdiction (see attached letter). San Francisco Bay Regional agencies unanimously call for restoring historic baylands and pulling back from the shoreline to cope with inevitable rising seas. At a minimum, the project should identify the anticipatable impacts associated with the projected rates of sea level rise. The State of California defined these rates in 2012 via the California Climate Action Team (CAT) that developed sea level rise www.gallinaswatershed.org gallinasvalley@gmail.com (415) 578-2580 projections (relative to sea level in 2000) for the state. These range from 10-17 inches by 2050,17-32 inches by 2070, and 31-69 inches at the end of the century. If the Greenland Ice Sheet were to melt, as some scientists are predicting, these levels and rates were be both larger and sooner than anticipated. Development behind failing infrastructure This subtidal parcel is not currently flooded on a daily basis because it is surrounded by perimeter levee and served by a pump. The levee system is owned in part privately (by the applicant), by Marin County and by the State of CA. Authorization of this project should be rejected until the City can clearly identify the feasibility of and secure the funding for the levee improvements necessary to protect the public and this project over its design life. Lost Opportunity It makes more sense to allow this parcel, at least in part, to revert to its original landscape as wetland habitat which could be used to buffer sea level rise, or to attenuate floodwaters. Restoration of managed wetlands could provide important added tidal exchange energy necessary to maintain the existing tidal channel network, and provide flood hazard protection for the adjacent and upstream communities of Santa Venetia and Terra Linda. The acquisition of this parcel for flood protection and its ecological benefit should be considered as an opportunity to save taxpayers millions of dollars. Restoration of this parcel would act significantly to protect homes and businesses already in existence, rather than putting an additional burden on public infrastructure and emergency services. San Rafael general plan policies also support protecting baylands. The entire site is diked baylands, former tidal marsh. San Rafael's policy does not require that wetland functions currently be present; and these could easily be developed, in line with historic function. Endangered Species GWC also speaks for the endangered species that inhabit the surrounding creek sides and marsh, in particular the endangered California Clapper Rail and Black Rail. (see Table 4 attached). The hired biologist has failed to make a factual case that these species will be unaffected by the soccer complex; indeed most sources show that lights, noise, traffic and sudden movements by people are most dangerous for wildlife, especially sensitive marsh birds. This is why the following protocols are standard for wildlife refuges: Refuges have closing hours at sunset in order to protect wildlife. The following are minimally necessary to protect sensitive species: 1. Establish sanctuaries 2. Establish buffer zones 3. Temporal zoning to reduce pressures at critical periods; open hours sunrise to sunset 4. Promote slow, quiet and predictable wildlife viewing 2 All of these standard protocols are violated with the proposed soccer complex. Lights WILL spill over onto the marsh; noise and traffic will make an impact; trash will increase and bring additional predation from rats and other vermin that truly are habituated to human presence; and the Clapper Rail will lose one of its critical habitats, sending it further down the road to extinction. PRBO's census of Clapper Rail populations identifies the Gallinas Creek area as one of the best.' For an endangered species to be threatened by any sort of development—especially one that could easily be located elsewhere—is not good public planning. It seems out of character that residents of Marin County or the state and federal regulatory agencies would allow this. Indeed, Marin Audubon, the Marin Sierra Club, Sustainable San Rafael, the Marin Conservation League, and the Center for Biological Diversity have all spoken out repeatedly against this environmentally insensitive project. Inadequate Mitigations and Monitoring Monitoring is only being done during construction. None is required for after the project is up and running. Monitoring afterwards is equally important to see that impacts on endangered species are not occurring, before the damage becomes irreversible. What mitigations or changes should the public expect should monitoring indicate that existing nesting populations are in decline or have been lost? These factors need to be given serious consideration and be spelled out. The FEIR also fails to take into account the reality that San Rafael has cut staff in the enforcement department, so that many of the ordinances already on the books, such as the ones dealing with massage parlors, gang activity, and graffiti, are going unenforced due to lack of staff time. This makes the city's promises of response to community complaints regarding noise and other issues with this project ring hollow. Should this project receive approval, the City should hold a bond/guarantee from the builder to pay for monitoring and any necessary city enforcement costs after the project has finished construction and for at least 2-3 years into the future. Greenhouse Gas Increase Given that the project is off the major bus routes and far from the public it claims to serve, it will also cause an increase in greenhouse gasses due to the need for all people using this facility to drive here. It would be much wiser to locate this facility in town, near people and transportation. In fact, this location is in direct contradiction of San Rafael's much praised Climate Change Action Plan, which calls for reduction in driving and protection of wild lands. 1 "The most populous site in San Pablo Bay was Gallinas Creek where we estimated an average of 244 (observer) to 251 (DISTANCE) Clapper Rails," 2005-2008 PRBO Report for California Dept of Fish and Game, http://www.prbo.org/cros/docs/wetlands/CLRA_DFG_Report_P0630020_FINAL.pdf A Sensitive Site and Lack of Clear Land Use Parameters There are no use restrictions agreement requiring that owner/developer keep this area as soccer recreation; in fact he has requested to have "flexibility" to change usage. If the biggest merit of the project is that it will add extra much needed soccer indoor and outdoor fields, this usage should be specified in this project and not be allowed to change. Public Health and Safety Fumes from traffic and airplanes and lead in fuels cause serious health effects on athletes and the young. And this usage for recreational facilities is specifically prohibited in Safety Zones 2 and 5 under the Airport Safety Handbook 2011. Water from the airport area is currently pumped without NPDES regulation directly into marsh. Contamination will increase as the additional impervious surfaces of this project will contribute to more runoff and add the oil and fluids dripped from the 300 -car parking lot. The plastic turf contains contaminants that will also directly wash into the marsh. Deed of Restrictions Owner/developer has consistently challenged the deed of restrictions on this property which were set for public as well as private, open space recreation; not a private sports facility, cafe serving alcohol, or for charity fundraisers. Lack of Consideration for Alternatives Other locations were listed in the original DEIR. They were not chosen due to various reasons, but their rejection does not give validity to this location. Since the project was first proposed many years ago, the economic climate has changed and more facilities closer to transportation and neighborhoods may have opened up. Given the significant existing and potential ecological value of this site, the City should make every effort to vet alternatives. Before authorizing this project, the City should undertake a current and comprehensive assessment of alternative site feasibility/costs/risks that would include the costs of infrastructure repair and maintenance over the project life as well as the risks to users due to airport operations and flood hazards. An Alternative Project Reducing the impact of outdoor fields by reducing or eliminating lighting (lights from sunrise to sundown only), and placing the indoor facility closer in town, may address many concerns. Having playing fields without lights and not permitting the indoor complex would not require any zoning change. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider the costs and negative impacts this zoning modification and project would bring, weigh them 4 against the short term economic benefits and come to a reasoned and clear decision to reject this proposal. s/Alex Kahl, President Gallinas Watershed Council CC: USACE RWQCB USFWS NMFS/NOAA Marin Conservation League Marin Audubon. Society Marin Sierra Club 5 s San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Vulnerable areas NORTH 15 3MILES 16 -INCH SEA LEVEL RISE BY MID-CENTURY CENTRAL BAY NORTH SOURCE: Inundation data from Knowles, 2008. Additional salt pond elevation data by Siegel and Bachand, 2002. Aerial imagery is NAIP 2005 data. DISCLAIMER: Inundation data does not account for existing shoreline protection or wave activity. These maps are for informational purposes only. Users, by their use, agree to hold harmless and blameless the Slate of California and its representatives and its agents for any liability associated with its use in any form. The maps and data shall not be used to assess actual coastal hazards, insurance requirements, or property values or be used in lieu of Flood Insurance Rale Maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).