Loading...
CD SR Airport Recreational Facility Project 2012 -partialAgenda Item No: 4. a Meeting Date: December 3, 2012 Special Meeting Time: 6:00 PM SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Community Development Department, Planning Division Prepared by: Paul A. Jensen [KTI City Manager Approval: /I SUBJECT: San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility – 397-400 Smith Ranch Road – Request for Zoning Amendment to Planned Development -Wetland Overlay District (revised PD1764-VVO). Master Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow development of an 85.700 square foot private recreational facility building, outdoor soccer field and warm-up field on a vacant portion of the 119.52 -acre San Rafael Airport property; APN: 165-230-10 through -16; Zoning: Planned Development -Wetland Overlay (PD1784-WO)� San Rafael Airport, LLC. Owner; Bob Herbst, Applicant; File NumbersZCO5-U1. UP06-08 & EDO6-15 Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: • Open the Public Hearing and accept public testimony unthe project; ° Close the Public Hearing and review and discuss the Final Environmental Impact Report (FE|R) and proposed planning applications, merits and issues; and p Adopt the attached draft resolutions and ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission (Exhibit2 through Exhibit 5). This project is coming before the Council for final aoton, following reviews that have occurred over 7 year period since initial project submittal. Staff has summarized the pertinent analysis of the FBR and planning app|ivabons, providing references to the Planning Commission's detailed analysis and discussion on these topics. This report provides on update on the outcomes of the Commissions deliberations and recommendations. It is anticipated that the City Council will receive a considerable amount of testimony at the scheduled December 3, 2012 hearing on this project. Therefore, staff recommends that if public testimony is lengthy, the City Council might consider closing the public hearing at the conclusion of the public testimony, and continuing the matter to its December 17. 2012 meeting in order to deliberate and take action on the project, The following sections of this report present summary of the numerous reports and meetings held to date. These reports and meetings are referenced herein, and available for review online at the following locations: Online Links to Referenced Reports and Materials Copies of the referenced project FEIR, plans, staff reports, exhibits and other materials have been provided on the City website at the following address: http://www.citvofsanrafael.or_q/commdev-home/ Select the link to 'San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility – Update and Documents'. FOR CITY CLERK ONLY Council Meeting: III f 1 -2— CA� . . Disposition: 0-- 1�,Avill SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paue: 2 Online Links to Referenced Meeting Audio & Video The audio and video of the Planning Commission hearings onthe project can beviewed through the City website edthe following address: Select the link for the respective meeting date. BACKGROUND The airport property consists of single, 119.52'aore parcel (Parcel B on Parcel Map 70 Civic Center Nurth, recorded in December 1983). A portion of the site which is along the South Fork ofGeUinas Creek extends outside of the City Limits and ta||e within the jurisdiction of Marin County. Aoneee to the site is provided from Smith Ranch /Road across aprivate roadway and bridge. The bridge and the road access are off-sitn.crossing a private easement within the Captains Cove development (formerly Smith Ranch subdivision lands) and public lands (North Fork ofGaUinasCnaek). The property is a relatively level site that consists of diked, formerly submerged tidelands (i.e., diked baylands) situated at approximately 0-3 feet elevation above mean sea level and bordered by the North and South Forks of Go||inas Creek The entire property is protected by e perimeter levee system that extends approximately 12.000 linear feet and connects with the Contempo Marin residential developments levee system. The levees around the site have been established at 9 -feet above mean sea level (NGVD), and were originally built circa 1940 as agricultural levees to reclaim tidally influenced lands for agricultural use. Prior to this time, agricultural use was initiated circa 1915 with purported fill placed near the existing airport operations (aka, o part ofthe Smith Ranch land ho|dingo). Currently, the site is developed with airport hangars and a runway, and all improvementsare located within the City jurisdiction. The proposed recreational facility project is proposed on the vacant portion of the site within the northeasterly quadrant ofthe property. The development would encumber this entire 16.6-aune portion of the site, which lies between the airport runway and North Fork of Gallinas Creek (see Vicinity Map - Exhibit 1). A more detailed description of the setting has been provided in the City Council Staff Report attached Exhibits, 'San Rafael Airport Draft EIR', Chapter 3, on pages 3-1 thru 3-4, AND March 27, 2012 'Planning Commission Staff Report', on pages 3 and 4, which can be accessed through the link provided above to the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility documents. General Plan and Zoning The San Rafael General Plan 202Odesignates the subject property Ai/port/Recreadon. The property iawithin the PO 1764 —VVO Zoning District, which is the master plan that covers the Gan Rafael Airport Property. The PD District presently permits operation of private airport and uses within a portion of the subject property ino|uding, but not limited to. light industria|, administrative office and airport hangars. The site and surrounding property information isosfollows: Project Site North: South: General Plan Designation Zoning Designation P/OS, Cons, Low Den Res P/O8, Cons, Low Den Rea P/OS.Cons, Low Den Res Medium Density Residential Unincorporated Unincorporated Existing Land -Use Airport & Assoc. Use McInnis Park Santa Venetia Res. 3antaVnnetia/Bay|and Contempo/CapLCove The project proposes construction of new, multi-purpose private recreational facility that would develop approximately a9.1-acneportion cfland onthe San Rafael Airport site (see Project P|ans).Thisdeve|opnnent would be in addition to the existing airport uses un-oiba, which permitted by the current Airport PD District and Master Use Permit approved in 2001 (Exhibit 10). The new facility is proposed between the existing airport runway and North Fork ofGo||inas Cnaek, east ofthe existing airport hangars and site access road. Wetland and creek buffers are proposed on the north side of the new development, between the proposed facility improvements and the bank ofGa||inasCreek. The remainder ofthe airport property, which islocated south of SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT I Page: 3 the runway, would remain undeveloped. The recreational facility project consists of the following uses and components: Recreational Uses: Indoor Uses. The project proposes construction of an 85,700 -square -foot multi-purpose recreational building, 39 -foot -6 -inch tall (overall height), with the following use areas: • Multi-purpose gymnasium area for recreational uses. The project plans propose to improve the building with two indoor soccer sports fields and two multi-purpose gymnasium sport courts, common locker and restroom areas on the 71,300 -square -foot ground floor level, and • A 14,400 -square -foot mezzanine level. This level would include an ancillary viewing area, approximately 4,092 square foot cafe area with dedicated countertop seating for 20 people, restrooms, sports shop, administrative offices and meeting room uses. The meeting room would be available for private ancillary recreational activities such as birthday parties and similar group events or meetings, and would be offered as complimentary use of local seniors for activities and for neighborhood groups who need meeting space. Outdoor Uses. The project includes a lighted all-weather outdoor sports field and an unlighted outdoor grass warm-up field. The project proposes to develop the lighted outdoor field as a 200 -foot by 300 -foot sized soccer field with all weather field turf, to allow year round use. Hours of Operation: The use proposes to operate 7 days per week. The applicant anticipates up to 700 daily users within the indoor facilities and 300 daily users for the outdoor field, with up to 12 equivalent full-time employees. The project would not be open during the weekday AM traffic peak hour (7-9am). The hours of operation would be as follows: Indoor Facility: 9AM to 11 PM Sunday through Thursday (weekdays) 9AM to 12AM Friday and Saturday (weekends) Outdoor Facility: 9AM to 9PM* Sunday through Thursday (weekdays) 9AM to 10PM Friday and Saturday (weekends) The Commission has recommended approval to allow the indoor facility to open at 8AM on Saturday and Sunday mornings during the winter season (November 1 through May 15).' *The FEIR Mitigation Measures establish an outdoor event curfew of 10PM to address light and noise impacts on wildlife and nearby residents. An earlier 9PM weekday curfew is also recommended in order to assure residential noise conflicts would not occur. Design and Site Access: The project proposes to develop the site in compliance with standards established by the US Green Building Council, with a two-year construction timeframe. Design features include solar roof panels and energy efficient field lighting. Site improvements include exterior lighting, landscaping and drainage. The building finished pad elevation would be raised with fill soils to achieve a consistent +1.0 NGVD elevation, and the building would be dry flood -proofed (impermeable to penetration by floodwaters) to +7.0 NGVD in compliance with FEMA standards. A new 30 -foot wide paved private roadway to the site would include a minimum 8 -foot pedestrian walkway. The new roadway elevation would be raised to meet the parking lot elevation of approximately 2.0 feet NGVD. All development has been designed to avoid conflict with an aircraft transition safety zone (i.e., 7:1 `ascending clear zone'). This zone extends at an incline angle from the edge of the 125 -foot airport 'aviation clear zone' setback to the sky (see Plan Sheet A-5). There would be 184 paved parking spaces, a turnaround drop off area, and 86 unpaved parking spaces provided. This parking exceeds the 222 space parking demand calculated for the proposed facility (see DER Appendix K, Fehr & Peers traffic report, page 19). In addition, the existing bridge crossing over the North Fork of Gallinas Creek would be replaced with a new two-lane, 25 - foot wide steel truss bridge deck. Lastly, during preparation of the FEIR, staff required minor plan revisions be SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pale: 4 made to confirm that tree screening and new Fire Department access requirements would be satisfied with along the north side of the building, with a 5 -foot walkway outside of the required 50 -feet wetland setbacks. Additional minor site plan revisions would be required to comply with project conditions of approval, to remove or relocate parking spaces along the south edge of the site, and assure buildings and parking areas would not penetrated ascending clear zones. The anticipated site and building changes would be minimal and would remain fully within the existing area of proposed development. Exterior Lighting: The project would utilize four types of lights, as follows (see Plan Sheets A-1 and A-7 for locations): • Building Entry: Eight (8) 42 -watt compact fluorescent under -canopy lights 20 feet on -center at the three building entryways. • Main Building Walls: Twenty-three (23) 150 -watt metal halide wall -mounted lamps at 50 feet on -center, 14 - feet above finished floor. • Access Road/Parking Lot Perimeter: Thirty-one (31) 42" high 70 -watt round bollards at 40 feet on -center along the access road and parking lot perimeter. • Parking Lots: Nineteen (19) 14 -foot tall poles with 150 -watt metal halide lamps on two-way side pole mounted fixtures at 40 -feet on -center. • Field Lights: Four (4) 40 -foot high poles on the north side of the field with energy efficient "MUSCO Green Generation" or equivalent 1500 watt metal halide lamps, 3 luminaries per pole, at 30 feet on -center and four (4) 23 -foot high poles with 2 luminaries per pole on the south side of the field. In addition, safety "obstruction" lighting would be required at building corners, fence and light posts, as recommended by the airport safety consultant, Mead & Hunt. Details of the light fixtures, field turf and proposed bridge replacement have been provided as attachments (Exhibit 14). The project requests approval of the following required zoning entitlements: • Zone Chance: ZC05-01 to amend the Planned Development Ordinance (PD-1764)—Wetland Overlay (WO) district to include development standards for the proposed recreational facility use. • Use Permit: UP05-08 (amendment to Master Use Permit UP99-9) to establish conditions under which the proposed recreation use should be allowed to operate. • Environmental and Design Review Permit: ED05-15 to approve the design of the recreation building and site improvements. History of the Project & Airport Site The project applications were submitted in 2005, and have been in process for a total of 7 years. Review has been delayed several times during processing. First, in 2006 the project review process was stopped upon determination that an environmental impact report must be prepared. Work on the EIR was delayed for 1 year in order for biological surveys to be conducted to identify clapper rail activity and nesting in the area. Further delays occurred following resumption of the EIR work; in order to negotiate expansion of EIR contract terms and review in response to changes in environmental regulations and need to study climate change and obtain funding for this work. The history related to this site and the chronology of the project reviews have been extensively discussed in the project FEIR and November 15, 2011, January 24, 2012 and March 27, 2012 staff reports of the Planning Commission. The latest synopsis of the land use history and project chronology can be found in the March 27, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report, pages 4 through 7. This review covers the land use restriction history, airport use history, and project processing. The January 24, 2012 Planning Commission staff report, at image 53 (i.e., Attachment A), details the 'History Related to the Airport Property Land Use Restriction.' During project processing, City staff also met with and received correspondence from Marin County Public Works and Flood Control District Staff, County Parks and Open Space, County Counsel, David Zaltsman, Supervisor Susan Adams and Supervisor Steve Kinsey. The comments, discussions and testimony provided by these County officials have been identified and are further discussed as part of staff's analysis of this SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL, AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5 project, where applicable. These discussions have been referenced, where appropriate, in the analysis section of this report to the Council. The January 24, 2012 Staff Report Attachment 11 contains a Dec 2009 letter from Marin County Counsel along with historical copies of the deed restriction and meeting County board minutes , April 2006 County Supervisors meeting on this project, San Rafael Community Services meeting minutes and City Attorney August 2005 letter to County Parks staff. In addition, the January 24, 2012 Staff Report Attachment 12 contains the updated Wetlands Delineation letter, November 2011 FEMA letter, and March 1999 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics letter. Design Review Board Action The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the proposed project and project photo simulations on July 19 and November 8, 2005. At its November 8 2005, meeting the DRB voted 3-2 (Member Crew and Alternate Member Machnowski opposed) recommending the following: • The architecture was well designed and appropriate for the site. The building massing, scale and colors are appropriate for the site and the proposed design would effectively integrate with the surrounding natural environment. • In terms of the project's potential impact to views on the surrounding areas (Mt. Tamalpais, Civic Center, and hillside and ridgelines) from the public vantage points, the Board determined that the building was of a low -profile design that would not: a) block any views of Mt. Tamalpais; b) significantly alter the aesthetics of the hills or ridgelines; c) silhouette any ridgelines; and d) only block a small portion (lower one-third) of the hills to the south. • Although the proposed structure may block some portions of views of the Civic Center from a 600 -foot portion of the County trail along the creek, this view was already compromised by existing vegetation and only represents a small portion of views of the 2.1 miles of public trails and vantage points with view of the Marin Civic Center. The Board requested further review the architectural details of the proposed new bridge deck, landscaping around the building, and more detailed architectural plans of the building, a final lighting plan, and final drainage plan as a condition of its approval. • Conditions of approval should be incorporated requiring: a) Perpetual maintenance agreement for on-going maintenance of the property. b) Overflow parking lot be paved and not remain as a gravel surface as currently proposed; c) Use fast-growing native trees to fill in gaps of the Eucalyptus screening trees along the southern and northern perimeter of the site (near the levees); and d) Mute the color scheme for the building slightly to reduce any potential reflectivity. Most of the Design Review Board recommendations have been incorporated into draft conditions of project approval. However, the need for a maintenance agreement is not recommended by staff. Rather, property maintenance would be an ongoing obligation established under the conditions of approval, which should be a sufficient mechanism in this case. The overflow lot is also proposed to remain gravel to avoid unnecessary paving at this time. Minutes of the DRB meetings are attached as Exhibit 12. Planning Commission Action On January 24, 2012, the City of San Rafael Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility project (FEIR). On May 29, 2012 the Planning Commission conducted its public hearing on the project zoning entitlements (i.e., merits), that included review of the staff report that had been prepared for its previously scheduled but canceled meeting of March 27, 2012. A considerable amount of public comment and testimony on the project zoning entitlements was received. Staff responded to questions raised at the meeting and the Commission concluded the public hearing on the project. The Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion to continue the project to a special meeting date of Wednesday, June 6, 2012 in order to deliberate on the project zoning entitlements. At the special meeting held on June 6, 2012, the Commission considered and discussed the project merits topics and issues. The Commission discussion focused on the project characteristics and site constraints primarily focusing on the proposed use intensity, size of buildings and placement of improvements, environmental factors, and compatibility with surrounding residential uses. After lengthy and detailed SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 discussion of the project, the Commission voted 5-1 (member Sonnet opposed, member Paul absent due to conflict) to recommend to the City Council adoption of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings of Fact, PD rezoning and approval of the project zoning entitlements, with findings and conditions of approval. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Final Environmental Impact Repo The project has undergone detailed environmental review that commenced in 2006. The discussion herein is condensed to provide the City Council with a synopsis of the review conducted by the Planning Commission at its hearings on the OE|R and FBR. Detailed discussion of the OBR and FBR hearings has been provided in the attached exhibits that are found in the link to the San Rafael Airport Recreational Fuoi|ih/ Project referenced above. This includes reports prepared for the May 12.2OUG. November 15.2O11.and January 24. 2O12meetings onthe BR. As noted in the referenced documents the decision to prepare an EIR was made following public hearings on a draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that had been previously prepared for the project and reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2008. An E|R was required to oddness airport safety and biological impact concerns raised by the public and Planning Cnmmissionors, in onnop|ianna with CE{JA. The City Council authorized an E|R contract in October 2006. Hownvor, work was postponed in order to allow for Clapper rail protocol surveys to be conducted, in compliance with federal regulations. On October 10. 2007 u Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared to obtain updated comments from responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties onthe project, with revisions, and work onthe E|Rwas resumed. The environmental topic areas addressed in the E|R and summarized on DEIR Chapter 3, pages 3-51 thru 3-53 (Proiect Description) are as follows: *Land Use and Planning The Land Use and Planning section provides an overview of the site location, existing and surrounding uaes, hiatory, current entitlements, and land use restrictions. This topic evaluated the compatibility of the project with the General Plan 2020 underlying land use desiynation, related policies and 1983 Land Use Restriction. ° /esthetics Renderings of the project were pnapared to evaluate the visual impacts of the project from prominent public vantage poinha, particularly to discern whether the project would significantly impact views of the bay, surrounding hillsides, Mt Tanna|pain and the Civic Center. Site lighting |ava|s were also identified and oonsidenad, with thresholds established that required low lighting levels that were considered comparable tosimilar development projects inthe City. * Air Quality Analysis of construction and vehicle emissions impacts were evaluated to uonhnn that development would conform to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Air Quality Pian and CEC>A m Studies were completed addressing special status species, potential impacts towetlands and other Waters ofthe U.S.. including conduct of surveys for special status clapper rail species using USFW's Draft Survey Protocol of the California clapper rail. �Cultural and Historic Resources Discussion of potential impacts to cultural resources was prepared based oncultural resources evaluation of the Project site prepared in February, 2005. including database snaroh, check of appropriate historic references, and a surface reconnaissance of the Project site. �Geology and Soils Impact analysis was completed based geotechnical reports prepared by John C Hom &Aasooiates. Inc. (JCH)and peer reviewed bvKleinfe|de[consistent with the Geotechnical Review Matrix contained inthe City ofSan Rafae|'eGeneral Plan 2O2U. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7 ° HazfrCs- A review for any local and state -listed potential hazardous sites in the vicinity was connpleted, and special study conducted to evaluate possible hazards associated with aircraft operations in the immediate vicinity ofrecreational activities. *Hydrology and Water Quality This chapter of the BR discusses the surface hydrology and water quality issues ne|edwa to the proposed Project. This includes study of the issues related to and effectiveness of proposed building floodproofing and risks to those using the proposed recreational facilities in the event of levee failure. ~ Noise Review and modeling of short-term construction and long-term operational noise impacts of facility operations, including pile driving that may be required for project construction. �Transportation and Traffic Using traffic analyses/updated studies provided by the project applicant and reviewed and analyzed by the City Traffic engineer, this chapter of the BR has evaluated traffio, banepudadon, circu|ation, and parking impacts near the project and atnearby intersections and street segments. �Other Environmental Effects The BR also addresses potential environmental effects associated with Agricultural Resouroea, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Sen/icen, Recreation, Utilities and Gen/ioen. Growth Inducing and Cumulative effects. °Pro4ect Alternatives A reasonable range of alternatives to the project including no-buUd, reduced scope and alternative location(s) has been prepared. This section was revised in the FBRtoaugment the discussion of alternatives. °Climate Change An assessment of the impacts upon climate change and the impacts of climate change on the Project are discunsed in this BR. This includes review ofsea level hse, project contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and compliance with the City Climate Change Action Plan. �Cumulative Impacts The impacts of the project in consideration of its individual and incremental impacts on the environment in consideration of all exisdng, p|onned, and approved projects in the areas affected by the project were identified and discussed. The FE|R was revised to consolidate discussion of all Cumulative Project irnpactsina||envinonmenba|topioanaaa. See FE|RChapter 2.atPage R-33. At its May 12, 2009 the Planning Commission accepted all public testimony, and provided comments on the � Respond toconcerns that development of the site appears to be occurring ine"piece-meal"fashion. Confirm that the noise analysis prepared for the site has been adequate to consider evening noise. � Confirm that the clapper rail study prepared for the site /nadequate. � Conduct further geologic investigation of the site and levee, levee stability and maintenance to confirm conclusions /nthe DEIR. � Confirm impacts of SMART train operations has been considered and addressed, � Provide clarification regarding the potential airport hazards and mitigation being recommended, � Further address the impacts at unsignalized intersections with Smith Ranch Road, and that peak hour traffic impacts were appropriately identified and studied for the site, and � Further discuss the adequacy and enforcement of the proposed conservation area. Staff notes that this meeting occurred before the City implemented its Gramicussystem. Therefore, only hardcopy minutes have been produced. These minutes have been provided in the FEIR Chapter 1, Section F (Letters & Reponses), at pages C&R -823 through -833 —auo*ssib|ethrough the link tothe San Rafael Airport SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8 /#h* November 15, 2011 hearing the Commission reviewed the FEIR responses to all comments received on the DEIR by the public, agencies and Commissioners. The minutes of the hearing can be found on FEIR page C&R -824 through C&R -833 and Responses tothe Commissioners comments begin on . Additional and expanded analysis has been provided in the FEIR on several topic areas, including: Climate Chan-ge This section was revised tnprovide additional discussion regarding sea level rise and greenhouse gas emissions. Although on exemption was provided to "pipeline projects," discussion was augmented to respond to changes made to CEQAGuide|inos in June 2010 and new thresholds ofsignificance for greenhouse gas emissions adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The new guidelines exempt local agency projects that were in process and under environmental review (post -issuance of a Notice of Preparation) at the time that the new thresholds were adopted. Therefore, the new thresholds are not applicable tothe project nrthopnojaotFE|R. |twas determined, bovvover, that it vvnuN be appropriate to report this as information -only. This information on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions is provided in the FEIR Climate Change discussion (See FEIR Chapter 1 Master Response GHG-1 at page C&R -43 AND FEIR Appendix C (Greenhouse Gas Calculation Tables). The FEIR discussion was further augmented to include discussion of project compliance with the City's Climate Change Action Plan. During preparation of the BR. the City obtained approval from B/V\QK8D of its Greenhouse Sas Reduction Strategy. The applicant, therefuve, has agreed to implement a sustainability strategy that would assure conformance with the new General Plan 2020 Sustainability Element Polices and consequently assure local compliance with the new BAAQKAD thresholds would be achieved. Projects that comply with the City's BAA(JW1D qualified GHG reduction strategy can be deemed exempt under the new CE(]AGuidelines. (See Geology and Soils & Hydrology and Water Quality impacts Additional test borings were prepared by John Horn and Aanooates, and further discussion was provided to confirm the condition oflevee construction. The analysis confirmed the levee had fully onmpaoted, and would pedbnn as anticipated to maintain flood protection for the site faci|itias, and respond as anticipated in event of an assumed low -likelihood levee failure event. See FEIR Master Responses at page C&R -26, FEIR Appendix C, AND Draft EIR Appendix I — February 4, 2006 Levee Breach Analysis by Lee Oberkamper and February 24, 2006 Existing Levee analysis by John C Hom. �Proiect Alternatives Clarification and expansion of the available alternatives to the project were provided. See FEIR Chapter 1 — Master Responses at page C&R -52 AND FEIR Chapter 2 at page R-46. The Commission continued its hearing on the FE|Rto January 24, 2012. Topic areas further discussed in the January 24, 2012 staff report are found at the following pages of the January 24, 2012 Report: i� Land Use and Airport Property Deed Restriction (beginning onpage 3) 2. Aesthetics (beginning unpage Q) 3. Biological Resources (beginning onpage 11) 4. Geology and Soils (beginning onpage 18) 5. Hazardous Materials (beginning onpage 21) G. Airport Safety Hazards (beginning onpage 24) 7. Hydrology and Water Quality (beginning onpage 33) 8. Noise (beginning onpage 38) 0. Transportation and Traffic (beginning onpage 4O) 1O.Climate Change (beginning onpage 42) 11.Alternatives (beginning nnpage 4Q)and 12 Other topics. The Commission concluded the following: � Answers provided by staff sufficiently clarified all ofthe questions, comments and concerns raised at the November 15hearing. � The FBR has adequately identified all potential environmental impacts of the project in compliance SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9 ➢ The FEIR has provided the Planning Commission with all necessary information to thoroughly evaluate and consider the impacts of the development project. The Planning Commission recommended certification of the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) with some further minor changes to discussion and mitigation measures, which are reflected in revised Errata sheet attached to the Planning Commission Resolution No. 11-16 (CC Report Exhibit 8). These changes included the addition of mitigation measure Traf-1, to include confirmation that the City Traffic Engineering Division would continue working with Caltrans to assure queuing impacts at roadway segments at the freeway onramps would not result, and AQ -2 to incorporate applicants the Sustainability Strategy as a part of the FEIR. Inclusion of these measures does not require recirculation of the FEIR document as they have been previously studied in the FEIR and agreed to by the City and applicant. Resulting Level of Significance with Mitigation Measures As required by CEQA, all potential environmental impacts of the project are proposed to be mitigated to the extent feasible to less -than -significant levels. The FEIR has identified potentially significant impacts in 8 environmental topic areas (Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards (including Airport Safety), Hydrology and Water Quality and Noise). A total of 44 Mitigation Measures have been identified and recommended as adequate by the Planning Commission to address the potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from this project; as well as to incorporate existing traffic monitoring and sustainability strategy requirements of the City into the FEIR, as discussed above. The required mitigation measures primarily establish controls on facility construction and design to protect wildlife and minimize construction noise and dust. Several design -related measures address building height and establish building construction and facility occupancy limits to mitigate potential safety conflicts between the use and aircraft in flight. Operational measures include implementation of a 10PM outdoor event curfew to mitigate noise and light impacts on wildlife and nearby residential areas. There were no potential impacts identified that would require mitigation in the areas of Land Use and Planning, Climate Change, or Other Environmental Effects. The project has not resulted in any potentially significant unavoidable impacts (significant environmental impacts for which there is no mitigation or that cannot be mitigated to less -than -significant levels). Further, no environmentally superior project alternatives are recommended that would meet the project objectives, given that all of the potentially significant environmental impacts associated with this project can and would be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. FEIR Conclusions As required by CEQA, findings have been prepared to certify the FEIR and all potential environmental impacts of the project would be mitigated to the extent feasible (see Exhibit 2 CC Resolution Certifying the FEIR and FEIR Errata). None of the revisions made to the DEIR have resulted in new impacts. Thus, recirculation is not required under the requirements of CEQA Guidelines for any revisions made to the DEIR discussion and mitigation measures. Further, no additional public review and comment period is required for the FEIR. Comments on the FEIR may be accepted during the hearing, but do not require an additional written response beyond that already provided. The City Council must also adopt the CEQA findings of fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project, in order for it to consider approval of the zoning entitlements required for the project (see Exhibit 3). As required by CEQA, the MMRP prepared for this project demonstrates that the measures required to mitigate impacts to less -than -significant levels would be implemented. The FEIR mitigation measures have been incorporated into the draft conditions of project approval, as recommended by the Planning Commission at its June 6, 2012 meeting. See CC Report Exhibit 3 (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings of Fact and Attachment A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) Findings made for each of the potentially significant impacts can be found beginning on page 3-19 of the attached CC Resolution (Exhibit 3). PROJECT ANALYSIS: The City Council must rely significantly on the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and Zoning Ordinances in rendering its decision on the project rezoning, use and design review entitlements. In addition, information SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 10 regarding the project environmental impacts, compatibility with surrounding land uses and comments from the public would be considered to evaluate the project. San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency: The recreational facility use is specifically consistent with the General Plan 2020 "Airport/Recreation" land use category established for this property. Prior to accepting this application for filing, staff reviewed the property land use restriction to confirm that the land use would also not be in conflict with this document. As a result, it was deemed appropriate to accept and process the application for recreational development on the site. Upon review of all other pertinent policies, on balance the project has been determined to be in compliance with these policies. A complete and detailed analysis of the pertinent policies and programs, and project compliance, is presented in the attached table (Exhibit 6). This also includes a detailed review for compliance with the new `Sustainability Element' policies that were adopted during the review of this project. A summary of this analysis also has been provided in the March 27, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report, at page 10. It is important to note that General Plan consistency must be determined by reviewing and weighing all of the goals and policies found within all of General Plan 2020 Elements. The General Plan 2020, and case law interpreting general plan requirements, recognize that the General Plan is a collection of competing goals and policies that must be read together as a whole, and not in isolation. In making a determination of project consistency with the General Plan, the City must balance any competing goals and policies. Case law has determined that a project "need not be in perfect conformity with each and every policy' and that "no project could completely satisfy every policy stated in the General Plan, and that state law does not impose such a requirement." (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association vs. City of Oakland — 1993). Thus, the City must exercise its authority to interpret its General Plan 2020 and determine project consistency by weighing and balancing any competing policies or programs. On balance, the project has been identified as compatible with the applicable programs, goals and policies of the Land Use, Housing, Neighborhoods, Community Design, Circulation, Infrastructure, Parks and Recreation, Safety, Noise, Conservation, Air and Water Quality, and Sustainability Elements (Exhibit 6). The project is clearly compatible with the Airport/ Recreation land use designation and Parks and Recreation policies that encourage and support public and private recreational facilities, including commercial recreation and all weather fields. Further, the project has been identified as wholly consistent with CON -5 (Diked Baylands) that states "Protect seasonal wetlands and associated upland habitat contained within undeveloped diked baylands, or restore to tidal action"; given that the project avoids identified wetlands and upland habitat. No areas of the project site are proposed nor deemed necessary to be restored to tidal action. Partial compatibility has been identified with NH -149 San Rafael Airport neighborhood policy that encourages, amongst other things, consideration for the provision of public viewing areas on this site. This specific component of this policy may not be appropriate since this site is private property with limited public access, due to the security concerns at the airport, and there is no connection to a public trail system. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: There are multiple sections of the Zoning Ordinance that are applicable to this project, and complete analysis of zoning consistency is presented in the attached table (Exhibit 7). This analysis must be relied on in making findings for the PD rezoning and related zoning entitlements. PD l;ezoninq Amendment The proposed Rezoning to a revised Planned Development District requires final action by the City Council, with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Typically, a PD requires a master plan prepared for the entire site. In this instance, it was determined that the remainder lands located south of the airport runway may remain as undesignated, undeveloped lands given the history of the airport site and existing infrastructure constraints that significantly limit the future development potential of the property. Based on its discussion, and analysis of this issue found at page 14 of the March 27, 2012 staff report, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft PD amendment as presented. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 11 Zoning Applications The proposed amendment to the current airport property Master Use Permit has generated concerns with nighttime noise and lighting impacts on surrounding neighbors, alcohol sales proposed in the building, and safety concerns with levee maintenance, flooding potential and adjacent aircraft operations. Additional concerns have been expressed regarding the viability of this use, and its impact on the enjoyment of the nearby open space areas, waterways and public pathways. The Planning Commission identified and discussed the many questions and concerns raised by staff and public during the multiple project public hearings. The analysis below summarizes the merits topics, which were discussed by the Planning Commission at its June 6, 2012 meeting. These merits issues address the deed restriction limitations and intent, proposed land use intensity, environmental constraints and neighborhood land use compatibility issues. 1. Declaration of Restrictions: The intent of the declaration of restrictions has remained a significant discussion topic throughout the project review, from point of application through the FEIR process. The November 15, 2011 and January 24 and March 27 2012 staff reports to the Commission address this topic at length. The Background section of this report (page 4, above) directs the Council to the referenced materials related to this topic, which has been fully discussed (i.e., `History of the Project & Airport Site'). Also, the declaration is described and discussed in the FEIR Master Response PD -2, at page C&R -12. While acknowledging some ambiguity exists in the record on this subject, staff and the majority of the Commission agreed with the City Attorney's legal opinion that the project was consistent with the declaration of restriction. Commissioners further noted much has been accomplished already to preserve the low-density character enjoyed by residents within San Rafael, development proposed on the site has been very limited, and the record appears to be clear that this use may be considered. Additional documents that have been presented as evidence to support the opposing position regarding the land use intent include a 1991 affidavit prepared in response to the lawsuit filed challenging the deed restriction, in which former supervisor Robert Roumiguere states that he had urged the City to include the deed restriction "to ameliorate adverse impacts engendered by the density of the project" and two related newspaper articles from that time found in the Pacific Sun (Nov. 15 91) and Newspointer (Aug29-Sep 4 1990) which covered the lawsuit. These statements about the intent of the deed restriction occur after the 1983 project approval and recordation of the deed restriction. The 11/22/83 written meeting minutes of the Marin County Board of supervisors record a statement made by the Civic Center North and Airport owners representative that the restriction would `prohibit any further development of the property". The 2/22/83 City Council meeting minutes also record the statement that the land use restrictions would "mean that high density or commercial development would never take place on that parcel." Further, the airport parcel map PM 21 70, recorded Dec 1983 included an option for purchase of the westerly edge of the site (adjacent to Civic Center North Parcel A boundary) for preservation as a natural habitat area. In considering all of these facts, including statements, the entitlement history, and the resulting action by the Board of Supervisors to pass a motion supporting recordation of the deed restriction with the specific terms limiting land uses, it must be reasonably concluded that the 1983 Marin County Board of Supervisors expected that the deed restriction would preclude further development of the airport property with additional uses — other than those that were specifically allowed under the deed restriction terms. The affidavit and articles can be found online at the links above — beginning on page 10 of the `Comments of Opposition' attachment to the May 29, 2012 Planning Commission memorandum. Without question, the deed restriction was recorded in order to limit the types of land uses that could occur on the airport property, which consisted of low-lying diked baylands that were anticipated to contain wetlands. The restriction also was specifically intended to preserve the existing private airport use. The nexus for requiring the deed restriction rested on the fact that the Civic Center North project and the airport lands were subject to a parcel split. However, there was no formal requirement for a density transfer from one property to the other as part of the adjacent Civic Center North development project entitlements - at the time these were considered and approved in 1983. Thus, as a result of detailed review of the chronology of the actions related to the development of the Civic Center North project, staff has concluded that neither the City nor County land use records support opinions that the deed restriction would preclude further development with structures or as a density transfer from the airport site to Civic Center North site. However, it remains appropriate for the City to consider all site and land use history along with site characteristics and applicable codes and policies in determining whether to support the types and intensity of recreational uses proposed on the property. Staff maintains that the City (and County as a mutual party of the agreement) must give great weight to the terms as SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT l Paye: 12 stated in the recorded deed. Based on these terms, the use is consistent with the declaration and may be considered. To date, following each review of this proposal that has been conducted by the County, the Board of Supervisors and County Counsel acknowledge that it is appropriate for the City to process the requested entitlements for the private recreational use. Although they have explicitly declined to take a formal position on whether the development is consistent with the intent of the restriction, the County would not oppose the proposal, as currently presented. Essentially, the County defers to the City in making its own land use determination on this project, including its consistency with the land use restriction. 2. Safety (Flooding and Airport Safet Levee Safety As noted in the FEIR and project analysis, this site is located below flood elevation and protected by agricultural levees that were constructed as early as the 1940's for the Smith Ranch property. Due to the fact that the site lies below flood elevation, the building and site improvements have been required to be developed to meet FEMA flood -proofing requirements; i.e., dry -flood proofed to +7 feet elevation to preclude intrusion of floodwaters into the building in the event of levee failure. Risk of flooding due to levee failure was also evaluated. It has been confirmed that the levee has fully compacted and the site would not be subject to any sudden or immediate inundation - as demonstrated by reviews completed by Oberkamper & Associates during the FEIR process - and that emergency vehicles could access the site and patrons would have time to evacuate that site and facility in the event of flooding. The analysis that supports the levee safety conclusions are referenced in the Environmental Analysis discussion above, at page 8. Portions of the levee system that protect the property are located on state lands, which are held in Trust by the County of Marin. The County has performed occasional work to repair the levees on its lands. The County also concluded that it cannot enter into a joint maintenance agreement with the owner for this levee system, given that it is not located within a flood district and are not built as engineered flood control levees. Therefore, the County has asked that the project conditions of approval accurately reflect that the County is not responsible for maintenance of the levees. Likewise, the owner has noted that conditions should not impart responsibilityo on them to maintain levees that fall outside of its property boundary. Draft use permit Condition's 8 and 9 have been modified to reflect the interests of both parties, but to assure that levee maintenance practices would continue for the duration of use. Ultimately, it would remain incumbent and in the airport owner's interest to continue to routinely inspect and assure the levees are maintained; to protect undeveloped and developed portions of the site from inundation, and costly repairs related thereto. Ongoing study of sea level rise shows that flood elevations will likely continue to increase. Recent recommendations encourage providing and restoring natural tidal marsh buffers between urban development and the bay waters. This is an issue that will need to be addressed by multiple agencies throughout the region, to protect existing low-lying urban development that is protected by fill and levee systems. There is no new study or regulation that would trigger alternative development standards for the project. Thus, development has been designed in compliance with the current standards and requirements that apply to all existing and any new development in a similar location. There were no additional merits concerns raised with regard to flooding by the Commission. Further, staff notes that the undeveloped diked-baylands on the airport and adjacent to the site which are held in trust by the County would be subject to any future standards adopted to address sea level rise, including potential reclamation. Airport Safety Extensive analysis of airport safety has been required and completed by Mead & Hunt, airport safety consultants hired by the City. Review of the project merits had to be continued from the March 27 Commission meeting to May 29 in order for staff to respond to comments received from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics regarding changes made to its airport safety hazard guidelines (Handbook); which the airport safety analysis relied upon in concluding no undue safety hazards would result, with mitigation. The Caltrans letter specifically advises that the City needs to consider safety of children that would use the facility, in light of the recent change made to its guidelines, which now states group recreational uses should be prohibited near active airports. In reviewing the project, staff and the City EIR consultants utilized the 2002 Handbook guidelines. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paize: 13 A detailed memorandum was provided to the Commission on this topic at its May 29 meeting (Memorandum dated May 17, 2012, with attachments), which concluded that the project would not violate the specific technical safety parameters for reducing risk for developments near an active airport. The change in the Caltrans Handbook 2011 that recommended "group recreation" be prohibited in the subject safety zones did not do so based on new technical data. Rather, Caltrans expresses its interest in protecting sensitive users, such as children and elderly. Mead & Hunt has determined in its review of this matter that group recreation uses create concern due to the potential to draw large numbers of spectators, and create confined seating spaces. Mead & Hunt concluded that the subject use would not pose an undue risk to users of the facility given the limited use of the airport facility, the fact that the subject "group recreational' use would not create confined spaces or draw large numbers of spectators to the facility, the facility use would be well below the maximum occupancy thresholds established for the safety zones, and the building and fencing would provide protection from crash risks. Several additional safety measures were recommended to ameliorate the safety risk concerns, including assuring that no penetrations into aircraft ascending clear zones would occur, exits and building sprinkler systems would be increased, and barrier fencing would be installed, among others. These requirements are listed in project conditions. The Commissioners expressed interest in assuring that all development, including buildings and vehicle parking and drive aisles, would not violate the ascending clear zones established for the airport. Further, they recommended that the warm-up field should be moved further away from the airport runway, to provide an added measure of comfort given its proximity to the airport runway (by an additional 60 -feet). The majority of the Commission supported the project intensity on the basis that it would not violate the occupancy thresholds identified as applicable by the City airport safety consultant, utilizing the Caltrans airport safety handbook, and that adequate safety measures would be included as recommended by Mead & Hunt. The additional safety measures are found in draft Environmental and Design Review Permit Condition 68, and require some very minor site plan changes to review final grading, adjust building and light pole heights and modify parking areas. Such minor plan changes to site and building would be reviewed by staff. Commissioner Sonnet offered a dissenting opinion, noting that the safety zones identify areas where crashes are likely to occur, and that the change in the airport safety handbook to recommend prohibiting group recreation uses should apply without the qualifications made by Mead & Hunt. Staff supports the conclusions of its airport safety consultant that the use would not pose an undue risk to occupants, as designed and conditioned. The site is considered to be suitable for the proposed type and intensity of recreational uses proposed and desired to serve the community. 3. Intensity & Neighborhood Compatibility The Commissioners agreed that it was important to assure the development avoided impacts on neighbors and the nearby ecosystem. The majority of the Commission concluded that the project clearly was consistent with the General Plan 2020 land use designation and recreation policies. In balancing all policies, it was concluded that the level of development was appropriate for this site, which is no longer pristine unspoiled land. The Commission spent considerable time discussing the pros and cons of the project and its compliance with all applicable policies. The final conclusion of the majority was that the location, intensity and mix of uses were all important to ensure the success of the project and meet the community recreational needs. Commissioner Sonnet maintained that the intensity was too great given the airport safety and environmental sensitivity of the area, and noise and lighting impacts that would affect nearby neighbors. Staff notes that Use Permit Conditions 44 and 60, as recommended in the Planning Commission Resolution, address potential changes to the types and intensity of land uses. Upon further review of its conditions, these two conditions are proposed to be consolidated, for clarity. Staff supports the conclusion that the intensity and types of uses are appropriate, as designed with adequate setbacks from the creek and wetland areas, and as conditioned to assure compatibility concerns would be ameliorated. This type of use is supported by the General Plan, is in an area with good access from Highway 101 and near similar recreational uses. New recreational development opportunities have not been realized in the area for several decades, and this would support a significant and important community need. The facility would help reduce demand on existing fields throughout the community, and serve a variety of recreational group needs. Further, the development proposed would utilize all existing and available public and private access, sewer and water infrastructure available for the property. Remainder lands south of the airport would need to secure access, water and sewer utilities in order to develop further with active uses. Any development SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paye: 14 or improvements that would accommodate further development of the site would be subject to environmental review and approval by the City. 4. Noise & Lighting The nearby residences will be exposed to additional traffic and game noise; in addition to existing ambient noise experienced from existing airport, traffic and the adjacent McInnis park land uses. The FEIR noise analysis concluded that noise associated with the outdoor fields could cause the City 40 decibel nighttime noise threshold (which applies after 9PM) to be exceeded at the nearest residences in Santa Venetia. The noise study confirmed that uses indoors would not exceed 40 decibels at the site property line. The building would attenuate noise such that it would not exceed 60 decibels in volume outside of the building, and would fall well below 40 decibels at the nearest property line. This study models predicted mechanical equipment noise and interior noise with operable doors and windows in the building. It was concluded that outdoor games could cause the weekday 40 decibel nighttime noise limit at residential property lines in Santa Venetia to the south to be exceeded (i.e., result in 41 decibels). As a result, the use has been restricted to end weekday games at 9PM, but allows that games may extend hours until 10PM if additional noise studies are completed during use operation that demonstrates the noise threshold would not be exceeded. City staff would oversee monitoring of at least five games for this purpose. Lighting has the potential to cause off-site glare and conflict with low level lighting of residential areas. A photometric plan has been prepared that shows all lighting would be directed downward to illuminate the site only, and to shield the light sources. The site would use advanced technology "Musco" lighting systems (or equivalent) that are much more energy efficient and significantly reduce the "glow" or off-site glare created by traditional older -style high-intensity field lighting. As proposed and conditioned, lighting associated with the project would not cause incompatible nighttime glare impacts on nearby residents as a result of the outdoor field lights (which would be adequately shielded and distant from nearby residences), from obstruction lights required for the facility improvements (which would be minimal and compatible with the airport use), or from traffic headlights crossing the private roadway (which would be shielded by a low hedge or wall). The Commission supported conditions recommended to control lighting, including requiring that a timer be installed to turn off lights at the established 9PM weekday and 10PM weekend curfews, to install a screen wall along the access road and bridge to shield headlights, and subject the use to a 90 day post installation lighting review. Concerns also have been raised with respect to car doors, loitering and whistles. The use maintains subject to the City noise ordinance. Conditions also would address potential loitering concerns. Lastly, whistles would be seldom used, and could be prohibited for use during practices, if deemed necessary. 5. Traffic Smith Ranch Road has adequate capacity for the additional 268 peak hour trips that would be generated by the project. A traffic mitigation fee of $1,137,928, (which shall be subject to adjustment according to the Lee Saylor Construction Index to take into account changes in construction costs) would be required to be paid based on a fee of $4,246.00 times 268 total P.M. This fee would pay the project's fair share cost toward traffic improvements identified as required in the General Plan 2020; primarily at Smith Ranch/Lucas Valley/US 101 intersection with northbound and southbound on- and off -ramps. Contempo Marin neighbors have stated concerns with their existing left turn from Yosemite Road onto Smith Ranch Road. This intersection does not currently meet warrants for traffic controls to be installed to stop traffic flow on Smith Ranch Road in order to facilitate left turns into or from the Yosemite Road side street. In response to concerns that additional project traffic could cause further difficulty or safety concerns, the Commission has asked that Public Works continue to monitor this intersection. There was also some discussion regarding bicycle improvements proposed for the area. Staff notes that the draft EIR page 13-5 through 13-43 discuss the bicycle lane classifications. Pursuant to the City of San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2011 (Plan) adopted by City Council on April 4, 2011, new Class II / III' bicycle facilities are proposed for Smith Ranch Road. Theses routes have a "Mid -Term" priority with up to Class II facilities consists of a 4 -foot to 5 -foot wide striped and stenciled one-way bike lane, between the vehicle travel lane and curb. Class III facilities consists of a bicycle route shared with pedestrians or vehicular traffic, designated by signing and stencil markers. Class I is typically a path that provides for two-way bicycle travel on a paved right of way separated for the street. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / PaLye: 15 10 years to implementation; covering a length of 0.9 miles and estimated cost of $27,650.00.2 Also, an existing Class I multi -use bicycle path extends between Old Redwood Highway (near Bank of America) to the private road access for the subject project site (see attached map). Additional Class I pathways are planned along the SMART line. The Plan in its entirety can be found online at: http://acm.cityofsanrafael.org/Government/PublicWorks/San Rafael Public Works Projects/Bike Pedestrian Master Plan Update.htm The Commission further recommended that the existing pathway proposed along the access road must be increased in width from 5 -feet to at least 8 -feet, with 10 -feet optimal. This wider multi -use path could be accommodated within the existing 30 -foot path/driveway extension proposed for the project. 6. Biological Resources The site is near sensitive California Clapper Rail and Black Rail habitat, which occur along the banks of the North and South forks of Gallinas Creek. The site is also a diked historic bayland. Further development of the property could impact sensitive wildlife in the area, and would preclude any future ability to reclaim the subject project -area as tidal marsh, if desired. The project would be set back over 100 feet from the creek bank, which is on the outboard face of the existing 9 foot tall levee. A 50 foot setback is also provided from wetlands on the site, north of the building. Fencing and a conservation restriction would further preclude intrusion into the buffer areas. The biological resource analysis prepared by the City consultant Monk & Associates confirmed that the setback buffers would be adequate, and further recommended a 10PM lighting curfew that has been incorporated into the project to facilitate nocturnal wildlife movement. Proposed restrictions on the facility's operation and design, including installation of barrier fencing, establishment of wetland conservation area, enhanced building design features, parking lot configuration, proposed signage, and/or occupancy restrictions and controls would adequately address concerns with site safety and/or protection of wildlife and habitat. Further, the project area is not pristine and as noted above, significant portions of the site would remain undeveloped. 7. Hours and Alcohol Service The hours of operation would increase traffic activity along the access road, and potential ancillary noise from vehicles and users arriving and departing at night. The Planning Commission concluded the proposed hours would be acceptable, including a request by the soccer operator to operate earlier at 8AM on weekends during winter season — Nov 1 through May 15 (this condition change was erroneously omitted from the Commissions resolution, and has been added to the Council resolution, as Use Permit Condition 36 & 37). Concerns with proposed alcohol service were discussed at length by the Commission. The operator noted that they voluntarily cease alcohol service during children play times. The Commission discussed whether it would want to formally restrict the hours of sales. In its final analysis, the Commission concluded it was appropriate and acceptable to allow beer and wine sales commensurate with the food service use, in the established dining areas. Beer sales are not uncommon at sports and recreation facilities and no undue nuisance issues are anticipated to occur. 8. Community Need/Land Use Commissioners felt that it was important to establish that the facility would fulfill a community need. It was discussed whether the Commission should recommend a minimal number of games be offered for local recreational teams, to guarantee its availability for local league plan. The soccer operator noted that 75% of its field use is through leagues with 25% through rental. Further, leagues are currently required to travel outside of the area to meet the field demands. The Commission concluded that provision of additional fields would free up other recreational league fields in the area, and that did not feel it practical to recommend a specific number of reserved games for local league play. Review of the PD Ordinance Standards and Resolution Conditions: The PD zoning ordinance has been updated to include setback and intensity standards for the new use, in addition to the existing airport uses (Exhibit 4). The existing airport has substantially built -out in compliance 2 San Rafael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan — 2011 Update Table 6-2 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / PaEe: 16 with the approvals granted in 2001. All conditions applicable to the existing airport and limited non -aviation uses have been incorporated into revised project conditions of approval. The minor changes proposed to the current airport facility use permit conditions have been identified with strike -out (oo) and underline (oo) text (Exhibit 5). Conditions of approval have been included to address the potential compatibility issues of the new recreational facility. In addition, conditions have been incorporated to address passive land uses that have historically occurred on the airport site, such as grazing, and to identify the limited uses activities allowed within proposed conservation areas and lands south of the airport runway that are not a part of the project and remain undeveloped. Staff notes that if the recreational facility use is approved and not implemented, then the uses shall revert back to the 2001 Master Plan approval for the existing airport facility operations, and all conditions for approval of the proposed recreational facility would be null and void. As part of its review and deliberations, the City Council may recommend other restrictions or modifications. A review of revisions for this project specifically recommended by the Planning Commission is provided below. Additional minor corrections to the recreational facility conditions of approval, and further changes to conditions being recommended by staff as noted in the discussion above, are identified in the draft CC resolutions with underline and strikeout text; i.e. Use Permit Conditions 8 & 9 further clarifying airport/county levee ownership and maintenance. Planning Commission Revisions to the Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval Use Permit Conditions No.s: ♦ No. 35. Strike the reference to 50 person occupancy limit for warm-up field. A higher warm-up field occupancy limit has been established in the revised conditions, based on the Mead & Hunt recommendations. ♦ No. 36. Allow an 8AM start time on Saturday and Sunday for outdoor games during the winter season. ♦ No. 41. Add a clarification that no "fixed or temporary" bleachers would be permitted in the outdoor field. ♦ No. 42. Specify that "community groups" are permitted to use the indoor meeting rooms. ♦ No. 44. Strike references made to AM/PM trip calculations, which are no longer pertinent. ♦ No. 49. Add a recycling requirement to refuse collection areas. ♦ No. 52. Change the term `applicant' to `operator'. ♦ No. 53. The condition 53 has been combined with 51, and conditions are renumbered. ♦ No. 55(revised to 54). Establish that the airport is responsible for the maintenance of the screen fence required along the roadway. ♦ No. 57 (revised to 56) Specify that the outdoor field lights must be turned off when no games are scheduled. ♦ No. 59 (revised to 58) Specify that no penetrations into the ascending clear zone shall occur. ♦ No. 60 (revised to 59) Specify that no penetrations into the ascending clear zone for parking proposed along the south project boundary nearest the runway shall occur. No. 59 & No. 60 revisions may result in minor adjustment to building height dimensions of up to 1.7 feet at eaves and relocation or elimination of parking along the southern boundary. The site parking plan currently exceeds its 222 space parking demand by 52 spaces, thus could readily lose parking on-site, or accommodate parking on the west side of the building without extending outside of the proposed development boundary. Environmental and Design Review Condition No.s: ® Add Condition's No. 24 & No. 71 to require bird strike decals be affixed to windows. ♦ No. 56 (revised to 57) Incorporate the Commission's recommendation that continued monitoring of traffic at Yosemite Road would be performed by City Public Works. e No. 67 (revised to 68) & No. 166 (revised to 170). Add the additional measures recommended by Mead & Hunt to address flight hazard concerns, including posting of the maximum occupancy limits inside the building and in the outdoor field and warm-up areas, as recommended by the airport safety consultants analysis. Add new Condition No. 60 to require an additional setback of 60 -feet to be provided from the runway to the outdoor warm-up field area. + Add new Condition No. 70 to widen the walkway along the access road from 5' up to 8' to 10'. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paize: 17 PUBLIC COMMENTS: There has been considerable amount of written correspondence and attachments received on this project, including petitions, which have been presented during the course of review of this proposal. Public comments that were presented at the prior public hearings held on the project merits (prior to February 2006) are contained in the project file. These previous comments have not been forwarded with comments received after project processing resumed, following the decision to prepare an EIR on the project which included modifications to the hours and outdoor field use. Comments in response to the Draft EIR have been incorporated into the Final EIR. All other comments on the merits of the current project received through May 29, 2012 have been separately provided to the City Council in electronic media format. This includes a sizable list of email respondents to a posting made on the Center for Biological Diversity nonprofit agency website, regarding protection of Clapper Rails (which are available in Outlook Archive format). All new correspondence received since the close of the May 29 Planning Commission public hearing, and in response to the previous August 6 2012 cancelled meeting and current December 3, 2012 City Council meeting notice are attached as Exhibit 16. This large exhibit will be provided in an electronic format for the City Council, and divided into several segments (e.g., sub -exhibits) to aid in locating, reviewing and referencing these exhibit materials. Staff has provided the following summary of the points raised by project opponents and supporters: Comments of Opposition or Concern Letters, emails and petition signatures received expressing opposition or concerns with the project include comments from residents in Santa Venetia, Captains Cove, Contempo Marin and Smith Ranch Homes neighborhoods located near and adjacent to the project site. Comments have also been received from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, Marin County Supervisors, County Public Works, County Parks, County Attorney, HOA's, and interest groups including Marin Conservation League, Gallinas Creek Watershed Council, among others. The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental nonprofit group, also sponsored an email campaign resulted in reporting of over 4,110 responses from individuals concerned with impacts on clapper rails; including a reported 145 San Rafael residents and 403 Marin County residents (prior to May 29, 2012). Copies of the emails are maintained on the City servers, and can be retrieved for download to a CD as archived Microsoft Outlook emails. A list of the email respondents has also been recorded in the City record. Primary concerns identified with the project are as follows: • The project would exceed the development intensity anticipated by the declaration of restrictions • More intensive land uses of the airport site could be proposed if the recreational use fails • The project poses a safety risk to aircraft by placing structures near the runway. • The project poses a safety risk to potential users of the facility, particularly children, as a result of a potential airplane crash at the project site • There is a health risk from lead used in aviation gas • Outdoor field lighting would create glare and change the residential character at night • The project would create noise especially in evenings disrupting the current peace and quiet enjoyed in the area • Alcohol sales would result in potential nuisance issues including loitering, noise, accidents, etc. • Traffic noise would negatively affect nearby residents given that the access road borders homes at Captains Cove and Contempo Marin residential area • Proposed late hours of operation are not compatible with the surrounding residential uses • Vehicle headlights may shine into homes located near the access road • Project -related traffic would increase delays and hazards at side street intersections with Smith Ranch Road, particularly Yosemite Road, due to existing conditions that limit visibility of oncoming traffic • The project has only one access, over a bridge, that limits access in an emergency • Development is proposed below flood elevation in an area that is not protected with adequate levees, which creates a public liability and safety risk for occupants • The project would preclude ability to reclaim low lying lands in response to sea level rise • Placement of a large building on the site would result in a sense of loss of open space particularly from McInnis Park, trails along the creek, Gallinas Creek waterway and adjacent residences SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 18 • The project would adversely impact the natural environment due to building on historic wetlands, increasing drainage into Gallinas Creek and impact on endangered species such ash the clapper rail In addition, video shown to the Commission at its May 29 hearing, by Robert Dobrin, can be viewed online at: http://gallinascreek.org/GallinasCreekWP/san-rafael-airport-videos/ Comments of Support Correspondence received in support of the project from residents, interested parties and interest groups include letters of support from San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Marin County Sheriff's office, Marin Soccer League, San Rafael Youth Soccer Club, and Marin Women's Soccer League, among others. A petition drive sponsored by the facility soccer operator generated at least 297 emails in support of the project; reportedly from potential local users in Marin and Sonoma County area. Primary comments in support of the facility include the following: • The project would provide vital recreational facilities and services needed in the community, particularly opportunities for all-weather and year round play for adult and youth leagues • The facility is complementarily placed near existing regional recreational uses and fields at Mcinnis Park • Marin County lacks adequate number of quality soccer fields available making it difficult to schedule league games and requiring people to travel outside of the area and more fields are needed to meet local demand • This facility will increase recreational opportunities, particularly for Marin youth, which is important and needed In addition, a video shown to the Commission at its May 29 hearing, by the Soccer Facility Operator, can be viewed online at the `San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility — Update and Documents' webpage link referenced above. UPDATED CORRESPONDENCE Staff notes that additional correspondence was received following the previous public hearing notice for the August 6, 2012 City Council cancelled meeting on this project, including email petitions from neighborhood area residents (see electronic sub -exhibit 16 5) and an updated letter from the Gallinas Watershed Council interest group of people that live and work in the Las Gallinas Valley watershed (see electronic sub -exhibit 16 6), and others. Some of the correspondence received by the City Council warrants further response, including; 1) September 24, 2012 letter from Hughes Gull Cochrane PC (HGC) attorneys at law representing Captains Cove Owners Association, 2) July 31, 2012 letter from Shute Mihaly & Weinberger LLP (SMW) attorneys representing Marin Audubon Society, the Marin Conservation League, and the Gallinas Creek Defense Council on matters relating to the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility, and 3) August 13, 2012 letter from US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) comments on the project FEIR. The letter from HGC provides objections to the conclusions of the FEIR regarding the traffic, noise and lights that would impacts residential properties abutting the access drive. (see electronic sub -exhibit 16 5) The letter also purports that the increase in traffic exceeds the scope of the easement. These concerns and claims have been previously been addressed. The FEIR adequately addresses the potential environmental effects of the project, and the concern with headlight glare has been appropriately identified as a project merits concern, with a recommended solution that would address this project related condition. Traffic, light and noise have been further exhaustively discussed and addressed. Lastly, the easement has been sufficiently documented. This application was initiated and in process for over 6 years. There has not been a legal challenge contesting the right of use. Therefore, staff recommends that the concerns raised in this letter are sufficiently addressed. The letter from SMW (see electronic sub -exhibit 16 4) re -iterates concerns stated in prior correspondence, that have been discussed in detail in the reports provided to the Planning Commission and City Council and in the Final EIR response to comments. Staff maintains that the discussion in the FEIR and in the project staff reports address these comments. There have been no new issues raised nor has any new information been presented. The letter from FWS (see electronic sub -exhibit 16 7) raises concerns that have been addressed in the FEIR. Staff has asked its consultant, Monk & Associates, to provide a response that discusses these concerns, for the Council to have a better understanding of these concerns prior to taking action on the project merits. Staff SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paue: 19 also will send a copy of this response to FWS for its information, confirming these concerns have been considered and addressed in the project FEIR. This additional response will be forwarded separately by memorandum. The applicant has also provided a response to the recent comment letters on the project, dated November 8, 2012, which is included in the attached comment letter exhibits. (see electronic sub -exhibit 16-7) . Any new correspondence received after publication of this report will be presented to the Council at the hearing. NOTICING: Public notice of all hearings conducted for this project, including this City Council hearing, has been provided to all residents, owners, occupants, neighborhood associations and interested parties by posting, mailing, and publication of notices in compliance with the San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.29 and the requirements of CEQA. On and before July 21, 2012, at least 15 days prior to the City Council meeting, a public hearing notice was mailed to property owners and occupants within at least 1,000 feet of the site as well as other community groups, neighborhood associations and interested parties. The entry to the airport site and the entrance to the levee trail at McInnis Park site were also posted with public notice hearing boards, and a notice was published in the local Marin IJ newspaper. Staff also has emailed notice of the hearing to interested parties that have previously provided email addresses. A copy of the public hearing notice is attached (Exhibit 15). FISCAL IMPACT: Pursuant to the City Fee Schedule, the cost of staff time for review of this project has been subject to full cost recovery. The project shall also pay cost of building permit review, $5,000 for mitigation monitoring, and development impact fees to cover its costs of development, including a $1.13M traffic mitigation impact fee that will be used to fund the projects fair share of traffic improvements in the area. OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options available for action on this project: 1. Adopt the Resolutions and Ordinance to Certify the EIR, adopt CEQA Findings of Fact and MMRP for Project Approval, adopt the PD Rezoning, and approve the Master Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit (staff recommended); 2. Reject certification of the EIR and direct staff to prepare further revisions; 3. Deny certification of the FEIR and direct staff to draft resolutions to deny the PD Rezoning, and/or Master Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review; or 4. Continue the matter to future City Council meeting for further review and discussion. ACTIONS REQUIRED: Staff recommends that the Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution to Certify the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Project FEIR 2. Adopt Resolution to Support Findings of Fact and MMRP required for approval of the Project 3, Adopt Ordinance to Amend the PD Zoning District Standards for the San Rafael Airport 4. Adopt Resolution to Approve the Master Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit for the proposed San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility use and site development EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map (hftp://docs.cityofsanrafael. org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/DecemberO3_2012/cc%20exl .pdf) 2. City Council Resolution Certifying the FEIR and Errata (hftp://docs.cityofsan rafael,org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/December03_2012/cc%20ex2. pdf) SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 20 3. City Council Resolution Adopting California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project approval (http://docs. cityofsan rafae I. o rg/Comm Dev/P Ian n i n g/S RARF/Decem berO3_2012/cc%20ex3. pdf) (http://docs. cityofsanrafael. org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/December03_2012/cc%20ex3a.pdf) 4. City Council Ordinance Adopting a Planned Development District Rezoning (http://docs. cityofsan rafael.org/CommDev/Plann ing/SRARF/December03_2012/cc%20ex4. pdf) 5. City Council Resolution Approving a Master Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit (http:Hdocs.cityofsan rafael.org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/December03_2012/cc%20ex5.pdf) 6. General Plan Compliance Table (http://docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CommDev/PIann ing/SRARF/DecemberO3_2012/cc%20ex6.pdo 7. Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (http://docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/December03_2012/cc%20ex7. pdf) 8. Planning Commission Resolution 11-16 and Errata Recommending FEIR Certification (http://docs. cityofsan rafael. org/CommDev/P Ian n ing/S RARF/DecemberO3_2012/cc%20ex8. pdf) 9. Planning Commission Resolutions 12-08, 12-09 and 12-10 Recommending the following to the City Council: a. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings of Fact (http://docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/December03_2012/cc%20ex9a. pdD b. Planned Development Rezoning Findings and Standards (http://docs. cityofsan rafael. org/CommDev/Plan ni ng/S RARF/Decem ber03_2012/cc%20ex9b. pdf) c. Master Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Findings and Conditions (http://docs.cityofsan rafael.org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/DecemberO3_2012/cc%20ex9c.pdf) 10. Current Airport Site Approvals: a. PD1764 (San Rafael Airport Master Plan) b. Master Use Permit Approval UP99-09 (San Rafael Airport) (http://docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/December03_2Ol2/cc%20ex10. pdf) 11. San Rafael Parks Commission Meeting Minutes (July 21, 2005) (http://docs.cityofsan rafael.org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/December03_2012/cc%20exl 1-12. pdf) 12. Design Review Board Meeting Minutes (July 19 & November 8, 2005) (http-Hdocs.cityofsanrafael.org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/DecemberO3_2012/cc%20ex11-12. pdf) 13. Sustainability Strategy (San Rafael Airport - CCAP Compliance Checklist) (http://docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CommDev/Plan ning/SRARF/December03_2012/cc%20exl 3. pdf) 14. Cut sheet Details: a. Light Fixture and Obstruction Lighting Cut sheet Details b. Turf Grass Cut sheet Information c. Clear span Bridge Cut sheet Detail (http:Hdocs. cityofsan rafael. org/CommDev/Plan n i ng/SRARF/December03_2012/cc%20exl 4. pdf) 15. Public Hearing Notice (December 3, 2012 City Council Hearing) (http://docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CommDev/Plan ning/SRARF/December03_2012/cc%20ex15. pdf) 16. Recent Correspondence (received since the May 29, 2012 PC Hearing) (http://docs. cityofsanrafael.org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/December03_2012/cc%20ex16%201-3a. pdf) (http://docs.cityofsan rafael.org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/DecemberO3_2012/cc%20ex16%203b. pdf) (http://docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/December03_2012/cc%20exl6%204x.pdD (http://docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/DecemberO3_2012/cc%20ex16%204a.pdf) (http://docs. cityofsan rafael. org/CommDev/Plan n i ng/S RARF/December03_2012/cc%20ex16°/x205. pdf) (http://docs.cityofsan rafael.org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/December03_2012/cc%20ex16%206.pdf) (http://docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CommDev/Planning/SRARF/December03_2012/cc%20ex16%207. pdD The following documents have been provided to the City Council separately ➢ Project plans (http.11docs. cityofsanrafael. orglCommDevlPlanninglSRARFIPianslSan l 2QRafael % 20Rec % 20Facility % 20 Project%20Plans. pdo ➢ San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (http.11acm.cityofsanrafael.orglGovemmentlCommunity_Development/San Rafael Airport/San-Rafael Air port Recreational_ Facility_ Final Environmental Impact Report.htm) Response Letter to US Fish and Wildlife by Monk and Associates (http.-Ildocs.cityofsanrafael.org/CommDevlPlanninglSRARFIDecemberO3 2012IMonk%20Response%20L etter°120to %20USFW. pd0 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 1 Page: 21 Copies of the referenced project FEIR, plans, staff reports, exhibits and other materials (including prior correspondence through May 29, 2012) have been provided on the City website at the following address: htt ,ll ,cityofsanrafael,orglco dev-hoei Select the link to `City of San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility — Update and Documents'. Audio and video of the Planning Commission hearings on the project can be viewed through the City website at the following address: h ,11 w. ityofsanrafael-oral eetin sl Select the link for the respective meeting date. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL INSTRUCTIONS: USE THIS FORM WITH EACH SUBMITTAL OF A CONTRACT, AGREEMENT, ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION BEFORE APPROVAL BY COUNCIL / AGENCY. SRRA/ SRCC AGENDA ITEM No. 4.a DATE OF MEETING: December 3, 2012 FROM: Kraig Tambornini 1912=11:4111TAI Be DATE: November 15, 2012 TITLE OF DOCUMENT: San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Project Department He (signature) APPROVED AS COUNCIL / AGENCY AGENDA ITEM: --1VJ I " 60 11dL City Ma ager (sig—n-4ture) IN :1111 11 Mom, APPROVED AS TO FORM: S -V\ V%- 54- �2 City Attorney (signature) L -'s INSTRUCTIONS: 2 • CITY OF SAN RAFAEL USE THIS FORM WITH EACH SUBMITTAL OF A CONTRACT, AGRE ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION BEFORE APPROVAL BY COUNCIL) (C -; Department H d (signature) City MahagWiig`r afur( -O'EMARKS: W '47Pv-L- 'capc-rt A DATE OF MEETING: yl (LOWER HALF OF FORM FOR APPROVALS ONLY) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney (signature) //I Page 1 of 1 Jeannie Courteau From: Kraig Tambornini Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:16 PM To: Paul Jensen; Nancy Mackie; Jeannie Courteau Cc: Rob Epstein; Raffi Boloyan; Anne Derrick Subject: CC Report for SR Airport FYI — I have dusted off my Aug 6 report and will be sending it over to Paul to sign, send to Nancy and then to City Clerks office. Our plan is to publish the report and exhibits on the CDD Planning Division webpage electronically tomorrow and send a notice to the interested parties and separately to CC members and Mayor, and have Anne mail copies of the plans to the Council. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. 11/15/2012 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following project: PROJECT: The City Council will consider: a) Certification of the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH: 2006-012-125); b) Ordinance Rezoning from Planned Development - Wetland Overlay (PD1764-WO) District to revised PD District; c) Master Use Permit amendment; and d) Environmental and Design Review Permit to permit construction of a private indoor and outdoor recreational facility on a portion of the 119.52 -acre San Rafael Airport property, including an 85,700 - square -foot recreational building, lighted outdoor sports fields, and associated parking, landscaping, lighting, fencing and access roadway improvements. Address: 397-400 Smith Ranch Rd. (APN: 155-230-10 thru 16). Applicant: San Rafael Airport LLC; Robert Herbst. Zone District: PD1764-WO. File No.: ZC05-O1/UP05-08/ED05-15. As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed At its January 24, 2012 meeting the Planning Commission recommended certification of an EIR for the project that meets the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council will consider Certification of the EIR adoption of findings of fact and a Mitigation Measuring and Reporting Program (MMRP) required for approval of theproject pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. HEARING DATE: Monday, August 6, 2012 at 6:30 P.M. (note: early start time) LOCATION: San Rafael City Hall — City Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street San Rafael, California WHAT WILL You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and HAPPEN: decide whether to approve the project applications. IF YOU CANNOT You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of ATTEND: San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. FOR MORE Contact Kraig Tambornini, Project Planner at (415) 485-3092 or INFORMATION: kraig.tambornini@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at hitp://www.citvofsanrafael.org/meetings SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL s? Esther Beirne Esther Beime CITY CLERK c 0 E 0 O EO LL 0 C) G —2 to 62 —,P,- S -2 0 t 02 R= rs -e o - Pz'o 71, c,5 zc—< g, > E Z o zol�> 31- t E,=r 5�1 a. ("'oo �p a , o++ 'N — '-Q a — 2 Lml goII \ } \ 0 Q f \ \ ) u-2 ) \ � ® � � { \ { � \ a $ ® « \) % 0 2 J 7 J) ƒ / � \ � ) g 3 L _ [ \ ) \ \ A* /\ A G3 � �\LU �[ , )U / \ J 4 - ~ ) % <k§ * 0 \) ) £ § z / \ \ \ \ 2 ± 7 /co +� � \ crg C) � ) d / \ CL \% /\ r � K (\ 7 � y )�5!/ 2 \/ < / \\LL ƒ\( ® < / ® / 0 _ \ \ j \ j \ j E \ j \ } In U � � ! $ w 4 - \° Q ;\\ \ \ \ 0 .E � = / � f.J \} ( $ \ ! § ® z * { \ y s o J 0 � P <o u IL IL Ul El P- o P- CITY OF SAN RAFAEL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following PROJECT: The City Council will consider: a) Certification of the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH: 2006-012-125); b) Ordinance Rezoning from Planned Development - Wetland Overlay (PD1764-WO) District to revised PD District; c) Master Use Pen -nit amendment; and d) Environmental and Design Review Permit to permit construction of a private indoor and outdoor recreational facility on a portion of the 119.52 -acre San Rafael Airport property, including an 85,700 - square -foot recreational building, lighted outdoor sports fields, and associated parking, landscaping, lighting, fencing and access roadway improvements. The City of San Rafael Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the project entitlements and rezoning on June 6, 2012. Address: 397-400 Smith Ranch Rd. (APN: 155-230-10 thru 16). Applicant: San Rafael Airport LLC; Robert Herbst. Zone District: PD1764- WO. File No.: ZC05-O1/UP05-08/ED05-15. As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed At its Januafy 24, 2012 meeting the Planning Commission recommended certification of an EIR for the project that meets the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council will consider Certification of the EIR, adoption of findings of fact and a Mitigation Measuring and Reporting Program (MMRP) required for approval of the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. HEARING DATE: Monday, December 3, 2012 at 6:00 P.M. (note: early start time) LOCATION: San Rafael City Hall — City Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street San Rafael, California WHAT WILL You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and HAPPEN: decide whether to approve the project applications. IF YOU CANNOT You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of ATTEND: San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. FOR MORE Contact Kraig Tambornini, Project Planner at (415) 485-3092 or INFORMATION: kraig.tambornini@eityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at hLtp://www.ciiyofsanrafael.or--/meeting SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL Esther Beime CITY CLERK, City ofn Rafael By- Jeanne M. Leoncini Deputy City Clerk UN" Aa A� 4umo tvru :-:0 :3 N'01 0 V) EA tix O E v3 A yg o -73 �3 , � .�- -P I "' L, * �— �rep 0 7— 3 3 -9 S. m. PE 3 F3 x.j - 4 3 :-4�m W OZ. It 0 3 G 0 0, 0 Q. 0. �0, 5- o a 1p o �L,3 o A- 92:5 �lu cn o > CD C: ID z o x > CD , (D (D =o`' 'n c z to QL O go= 0 �lu cn o > CD C: ID z o x > CD , (D O 'n ID Q z to QL O 1—tim L F-=] cr ft cr SFr o x o a O, cu rn c m m m o a D 0 Z m N h Z N p� c O, N Q N N` O a. Q a r m m m m w N A Q (D -n ry Oy x o b D n a a m o O. cr 4 N r7, � n ti N = Gm N � cr I 0 GJi w N cr ft cr SFr (i (n U n N n Cn D 0 Z m ti o c D c Z n Q > W N -y x (D (D -n ry Oy x o b D n a a m o O. cr r cn r � GJi w c0 0 Q T w m w X o � C M Cl) m b O T W r C7 O to a A w y v Qp 0 v m o o a Q x A x w T Q T > G Li o rn° 0 nm u r 3 A n� o n m � n n ° < O o � C � b � O c n O " a _ N in 2 n b @ m c C� m v v m cr ft cr SFr