Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutairport land use commissionSSYt�+�if i .�.f�.• 9. AIRPORT • . COMMISSION of San Luis Obispo County October 8, 2013 The Mayor and City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor and Council Members: The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County (ALUC) would like to express its concern regarding the Council's approval of an amended scope of work to its existing contract with Johnson Aviation on July 16, 2013. The Agenda Report (Item C6) relies on a number of erroneous statements in order to support its recommendation that the scope of work be amended to include "technical assistance with preparing an Airport Land Use Plan chapter of the Land Use Element as part of the General Plan Update." If the Council continues to proceed down the path of "adopt[ing] a land use plan for the airport area by overruling the ALUC," there may be serious consequences. The ALUC, therefore, in consultation with the Division of Aeronautics (within the California Department of Transportation), feels an obligation to make the Council aware of the assertions within the Agenda Report that are either inaccurate or are inconsistent with the State Aeronautics Act, codified in Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21001 et seq. (SAA).' The assertion: "The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has not seemed receptive to the technical information that has been provided that would support safety zone dimensions based on the operational, geographic, and metrological [sic] conditions that affect the airport." The reality: The sub - committee of the ALUC that is working on the amendment to the existing Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (ALUP) has, in fact, met with representatives of the Community Development Department (CDD) on numerous occasions to receive their input. In addition, the ALUC has received comment and input from the City during each of our meetings this year, even at times when no public comment period was scheduled. Neither Nick Johnson nor any other person representing the City has, however, presented to the ALUC any proposal based on "technical information that has been provided that would support safety zone dimensions based on the operational, geographic, and metrological [sic] conditions that affect the airport." The safety zones proposed by Mr. Johnson and the CDD were, in fact, nothing more than the hypothetical "generic" zones illustrated in the - California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook). Absolutely no analysis of.local conditions or operations was included. The Handbook indicates that the ALUC should adjust the "generic" safety zones "in recognition of the physical and operational characteristics of the airport." (See California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, October, 2011, page 3 -20) Some of the characteristics which must be considered include: high terrain in the vicinity of the airport, existing noise - sensitive land uses in the airport area, circling approaches, non - precision approaches at low altitudes, non - precision approaches not aligned with the runway, single - sided traffic patterns, runway use by special purpose aircraft, small aircraft using long runways, runways used predominantly in one direction, and displaced landing thresholds. The proposals presented to the ALUC by Johnson Aviation and the CDD addressed none of these mandatory considerations. In addition, the verbal presentations and written materials which were submitted to the ALUC contained an unfortunate number of factual errors. ' Pursuant to PUC Sections 21002(d) and 21242, the Califomia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has the power to enforce the SAA. — Page 2 — In contrast to the superficial proposals brought forward by Johnson Aviation and the CDD, the ALUC has developed a detailed analysis of airport operations and of the character of neighborhoods and existing development within the Airport Land Use Planning Area. This analysis incorporates all of the state - mandated considerations detailed above, as well as such issues as the high level of flight training operations and noise abatement procedures that are unique to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (Airport). The CDD is well aware of this process, as Kim Murry, Deputy Director of the CDD, was present at the June, 2013, meeting of the ALUC, during which the community and aviation analyses were discussed in detail. The assertion: "The ALUC is considering expanding and shifting the zones in a way that has potential to further impact development capacity for the southern areas of the City." The reality: The ALUC has proposed only one change in the defined airport safety zones, namely a reduction of more than 2,000 acres in the size of Aviation Safety Area S -2. The definitions of all of the other safety areas are unchanged from 2002. Any perceived changes in the shape and location of safety areas have occurred solely because of a.) Conversion from analog mapping to the more precise digital GIs mapping format, a change that was specifically requested by the CDD, and b.) Modifications to runway lengths and locations included in the 2005 Airport Master Plan and required by state law to be included in the Airport Land Use Plan. (See PUC § 21675(a) discussed in more detail infra) TheALUC has not and is not "considering expanding and shifting the zones." TheALUC has only responded to the CDD's requests for GIs coordinates and to the requirements of State law.. The assertion: "In order to pursue this approach to land use planning, it is imperative that the City have the technical data and airport operational projections needed to proceed." The reality: The City has, in discussions with the ALUC, suggested utilizing operational projections different from the Federal Aviation Administration- approved operational forecasts contained in the current Airport Master Plan. This approach is specifically prohibited by PUC Section 21675(a) which provides in pertinent part: "[t]he commission's airport land use compatibility plan [ALUP] shall include and shall be based on a long -range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, that reflects the growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years." In short, PUC Section 21675(a) disallows the City from utilizing "airport operational projections" that differ from those in the current Airport Master Plan. (See also California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, October, 2091, pages 2 -5 — 2 -7) The assertion: "Public Utilities Code Section 21676.5(b) authorizes a local jurisdiction to adopt a land use plan for the airport area by overruling the ALUC." The reality: PUC Section 21676.5(b) must be understood in the context of PUC Section 21676.5(a). PUC Section 21676.5(a) provides that if a local agency has not revised its general plan or specific plan or overruled the ALUC by a two- thirds vote after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION of San Luis Obispo County — Page 3 — with the purposes of the SAA, the Commission may require that the local agency submit all subsequent actions, regulations, and permits to the ALUC. In other words, PUC Section 21676.5(a) describes the consequences of a public agency's failure to abide by the requirements of Government Code (GC) Section 65302 and PUC Section 21676, GC Section 65302 requires a local agency to either make its general plan and any amendments thereto consistent with the ALUP or, "if it does not concur with any provision" of the ALUP, to adopt findings that its [general] plan is consistent with the purposes of the SAA (emphasis added). PUC Section 21676 requires a local agency to refer any proposed amendment to its general plan to the ALUC. !f the ALUC determines that the proposed action is inconsistent with the ALUP, the local agency may overrule the commission by a two- thirds vote provided that it makes specific findings that its plan is consistent with the purposes of the SAA. Both GC Section 65302 and PUC Section 21676 contemplate and are intended to address merely an inconsistency between particular provisions of the ALUP and particular provisions of a general plan rather than the creation of an alternate (and conflicting) airport land use plan by a public agency within its general plan. As PUC Section 21676.5(b) simply clarifies the consequences of a public agency's conformance with GC Section 65302 and PUC Section 21676, it similarly cannot be interpreted as authorizing a local agency to usurp the function of the entire ALUP through the creation of "an airport land use chapter of the Land Use Element." Moreover, any such interpretation is inconsistent with PUC Sections 21674(c) and 21675 which grant to the ALUC the power to prepare and adopt an ALUP. If the City proceeds with its intended course of action, the Division ofAeronautics may potentially considerthe area surrounding the Airport as a "no- ALUP" area. Consequently, consistent with PUC Section 21675.1(a) and (b), it may require or authorize the ALUC to require that all actions, regulations, and permits within the vicinity of the Airport be submitted to the ALUC for review and approval. In addition to the above inaccuracies, the Agenda Report submitted to the City Council on July 16, 2013 includes no mention of the very important matter of liability. PUC Section 21678 states that "With respect to a publicly owned airport that a public agency does not operate, if the public agency pursuant to [PUC] Sections 21676, 21676.5, or 21677 overrules a commission's action or recommendation, the operator of the airport shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency's decision to overrule the commission's action or recommendation." In plain language, this Section provides that, if the City proceeds with its stated intent to adopt a Land Use and Circulation Element that is deliberately not in conformance with the ALUP, the County of San Luis Obispo will be absolved of any liability for damage to property or injury to persons due to aircraft accidents within the airport land use planning area resulting from the overrule. Although the PUC does not explicitly state that such liability will be assumed by the City, it is hardly difficult to imagine that the City will be named as a defendant in any future claim for damages arising from an airplane crash in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. In any such action, the overruled ALUP would constitute a powerful exhibit on behalf of the plaintiffs. In summary, the ALUC wishes to make the Council aware that the course of action recommended to you by the CDD is potentially very reckless. The outcome of a Council decision to overrule the ALUC, in this circumstance, may be that every change in zoning, every use permit, and every building permit within the portion of the City of San Luis Obispo encompassed by the Airport Land Use Planning Area will require ALUC approval. This will, obviously, represent a huge increase in workload for the ALUC and an unconscionable barrier for individuals who wish to develop property in San Luis Obispo. Residents of San Luis Obispo who want to remodel their kitchen or add a bathroom or enlarge their den will need to seek ASSN THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION of San Luis Obispo County — Page 4 — permission from the ALUC. Clearly, such review of individual projects by the ALUC would serve no useful purpose and would represent a significant hardship for your constituents. The ALUC is not supportive of this outcome, but this is the predictable consequence of the confrontational approach that has been proposed by your CDD staff. At the very least, the CDD's attempt to circumvent the letter and intent of the SAA will embroil the City in prolonged and expensive litigation with various statewide and national aviation advocacy and pilot groups and, potentially, with the attorney - general of the State of California. At the same time, the City will be assuming an enormous liability exposure in the event of any future aircraft accident within the Airport Land Use Planning Area as the City's actions are contrary to PUC Section 21670. Regarding the City Council's decision to approve an expenditure of nearly $80,000 in municipal funds to employ the services of Johnson Aviation, the ALUC welcomes input from any member of the public and from any firm or individual with experience or training in airport land use compatibility planning. The ALUC, however, does take note of the fact that funding for consultation by Johnson Aviation has been previously provided to the City in the amount of $32,947 by a developer with a clear financial interest in bringing about a change in established airport land use compatibility criteria which have been in force since 2002. The ALUC finds it disappointing that the City would elect to rely on assessments, recommendations, or planning instruments produced by a firm so obviously influenced by funding from a private, for -profit financial entity. Accordingly, the ALUC reserves the right to evaluate any future proposals or comments from Johnson Aviation in the light of a significant likelihood of bias related to financial considerations. It is important that the elected officials of the City of San Luis Obispo understand that the ALUC has been working diligently to ensure that restrictions on development within the Airport Land Use Planning Area are not excessive or onerous. To this end, the Draft Airport Land Use Plan currently under development would: a.) Reduce the size of the Airport Land Use Planning Area by more than 2000 acres, as compared to the current ALUP, and b.) Reduce limitations on residential and non - residential density in Safety Zone S -2, and c.) Reduce limitations on non - residential intensity of use in Aviation Safety Zone S -1. The ALUC would strongly prefer to maintain the climate of mutual respect and the positive working relationship that it has enjoyed with the City of San Luis Obispo over the past five decades. It is the intent of the Commission to continue developing and improving a framework of rational airport land use policy that is both specific to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport and consistent with State law. In moving forward with this process, the Commission remains mindful of the interests of all affected parties — the City and County of San Luis Obispo, the California Department of Transportation, the flying public, general aviation pilots and passengers, airport- oriented businesses, statewide and national aviation organizations, and, most importantly, the members of our community who are potentially affected by the noise and safety impacts of airport operations. The ALUC's high level of expertise in aviation, extensive experience in airport land use planning, and active, ongoing relationship with the Division of Aeronautics and the aviation community uniquely qualify the ALUC for this mission. Additionally, for San Luis Obispo County, the ALUC is the only body authorized by state law to prepare and adopt an airport land use plan. The Commission, therefore, urges the City to respect and support the legitimate procedures for airport land use planning mandated by the SAA and to reconsider its decision to embark upon a course of action that is unorthodox and inconsistent with State law, and which will ultimately prove counter- productive to the City's interests. The ALUC recently received a letter from Kim Murry dated September 23, 2013 addressing some of the inaccuracies contained in the City Council's July 16, 2013 Agenda Report. Although the ALUC appreciates THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION of San Luis Obispo County — Page 5 — Ms. Murry's acknowledgement of the ALUC's duties and powers under the SAA, it takes issue with her characterization of theAgenda Report and the subcommittee's discussions with the Division ofAeronautics. The Agenda Report is quite clear regarding the expansive nature of the services to be provided by Johnson Aviation, including, without limitation: (a) "[ D]evelop an airport land use chapter of the Land Use Element which is currently being updated;" (b) Establish a framework within which all "future land use decisions would be made solely by the City" (emphasis added); (c) Develop "operational projections needed to proceed." 2 In addition, please be advised that only members of the subcommittee have participated in conversations with the Division of Aeronautics. Moreover, although actions taken by the City have been discussed, the existing ALUP and the proposed amendment have been the topic of much of the dialogue as a result of the allegations raised by the City and the Division's necessary role in the amendment process pursuant to PUC Section 21675(d) and (e). There is no support for Ms. Murry's claim that "there is a fundamental misunderstanding by the Commission and now Caltrans staff of the City's intent regarding the update of its Land Use and Circulation Element" (emphasis added). On the contrary, the ALUC has provided the Division with all correspondence received from the City and the Division has reviewed on -line recordings of a number of City Council and ALUC meetings during which the amendment and LUCE have been discussed extensively. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the ALUC remains hopeful that the parties can work together to resolve the remaining issues of contention. To that end, I am taking this opportunity to extend an invitation to interested members of the City Council to meet with representatives of the ALUC and the Division of Aeronautics to discuss these issues and the amendment process in greater detail. Cordially, Roger A. Oxborrow Chairman Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Enclosures CC: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Dan Buckshi, County Administrative Officer Kim Murry, City Community Development Department Deputy Director z These "operational projections" presumably differ from the FAA - approved operational forecasts required by PUC Section 21675(a) and discussed above. AAAM THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION of San Luis Obispo County