Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-30-2014 Closed SessionY ! • ■ uTi1�►r�i ax- *Mi'1771[-! ,- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS P.O. BOX 942874, MS -40 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274 -0001 PHONE (916) 654 -4959 FAX (916) 653 -9531 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov September 12, 2014 Ms. Kim Murry City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. Murry: SL_P 1 6 ' ?0'4 0 Serious drought. Help save water! AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date q- I b.1 q Item# Re: Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements Update; SCH Number: 2013121019 The California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division), reviewed the above - referenced document with respect to airport- related noise and safety impacts and regional aviation land use planning issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is for an update to the City of San Luis Obispo (City) General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE). After reviewing the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for this project, we have concluded that the City must not certify this FEIR as scheduled on September 16, 2014, because the City has not completed its overrule of the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) current airport land use compatibility plan ( ALUCP.) The City's action would be premature and legally not ripe for certification. Government Code 65302.3 states that local agencies shall make their general plan consistent with the current ALUCP unless a determination of inconsistency by the ALUC has been overruled by the local agency. This has not occurred yet and was not a matter of fact when the FEIR was drafted. Thus, Caltrans will not be barred from commenting later in light of Government Code section 65009, et. seq. Moreover, Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 21002, and in particular, subdivision (d) authorizes Caltrans continuous jurisdiction of the subject project and the environmental concerns Caltrans has raised in regards to public safety, a matter which is never waived. Since the Draft Environmental Impact Report and FEIR do not analyze the environmental impacts of the only adopted ALUCP for San Luis Obispo Airport's airport influence area, they are flawed and the FEIR must not be certified. It follows then that the project itself shall not be approved prior to an overrule of the current ALUCP. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Ms. Kim Murry September 12, 2014 Page 2 The City has not complied with Public Resources Code section 21096, which references PUC section 21674.5. Pursuant to Section 21674.5, subdivision (b) (4), the City has failed to follow "Appropriate criteria and procedure for reviewing proposed developments and determining whether proposed developments are compatible with airport use." Without waiving its objections as stated above, the City has further failed to correctly apply the Handbook's criteria of height, use, noise, safety and density. (See PUC section 21674.7.) If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 654 -6223, or by email at philip.crimmins@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, Original Signed by PHILIP CRIMMINS Aviation Environmental Specialist c: State Clearinghouse, San Luis Obispo County ALUC, San Luis Obispo Airport bc: Terri Pencovic -DOTP, Alan Fukushima District 5 Planning "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" STATE OF ALWORNIA —CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND Q. BROWN JR. , Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS — M.S. #40 1120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274 -0001 PHONE (916) 654 -4959 FAX (916) 653 -9531 TTY 711 NVWv•.dol.ca.eov By Email, and Overnight Service September 19, 2014 Mr. Derek Johnson, Director Community Development 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3218 0 Serious droughl! Help Save Water! Re: Caltrans' Modification of Paragraph 6 of the September 17, 2014 Response Letter Regarding Comments to the City of SLO's Intent for an Overrule: Change Wording to "ALUC" and not "City" Dear Mr. Johnson: On September 17, 2014, California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Division) submitted comments to the City of San Luis Obispo's (City) proposed overrule of the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Attached hereto to this letter is a copy of the letter and the attachments that had been sent. Please incorporate this letter to the September 17, 2014. The September 17, 2014 letter, paragraph 6, states the follow "If the City proceeds with this overrule, the Division still views the City LUCE as inconsistent with the ALUP. This means the ALUC has the right to require the City to forward every project within the Airport Influence Area to the C&P for review. " The last sentence of the paragraph 6, should say "ALUC" and not the "City" as follows: "If the City proceeds with this overrule, the Division still views the City LUCE as inconsistent with the ALUP. This means the ALUC has the right to require the City to forward every project within the Airport Influence Area to the ALUC for review. " Caltrans apologizes for any confusion it may have caused. This sentence is of course supported by the State Aeronautics Act, and in particular PUC section 21676.5. Sincerely, I ,` f)o"`� o, RON BOLYAR Aviation Planner c: Xzandrea Fowler, San Luis Obispo County ALUC, San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building, County Government Center, 976 Osos Street, Room 300, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 -1002 Kevin R. Bumen C.A.E., Interim Director of Airports, County of San Luis Obispo Airports, 903 -5 Airport Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -8711 Danae J. Aitchison, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General's Office "Provide a safe. sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" STATE OF CALIFORNIA — CALIFORNIA STATE I&ANSPORTATION AGENCY ED INp BROXM 1R G r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS — M.S. k40 1 120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274 -0001 PHONE (916) 654.4959 FAX (916) 653 -9531 TTY 711 www.dot.on.gov September 17, 2014 Mr. Derek Johnson, Director Community Development 919 Patin Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3218 Dear Mr. Johnson: .e Serious droughtl Help Save Water! One of the goals of the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Division), is to assist cities, counties, and Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) in the development and implementation of policies that protect the safety and general welfare of the communities in which aeronautical activities take place. We encourage collaboration with our partners in the planning process and thank you for including us in the review of the proposed overrule of the San Luis Obispo County ALUC. On August 22, 2014, the Division received a letter from the City of San Luis Obispo (City) regarding a proposed overrule. The ALUC reviewed the City's proposed Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) and found it inconsistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The City is proposing to approve the LUCE Update and implementing zoning regulations, which will require an overrule. The Division has reviewed the proposed findings provided by the City and has determined the findings are legally insufficient to support the overrule. Specifically, the findings are not consistent with the purposes of the statutes set forth in California Public Utilities Code (PUC), section 21670. The City's findings do not provide substantial evidence that the proposed LUCE will meet the requirements of PUC, section 21670(a)(I) &(2). The LUCE references the California Airport Land Use Handbook (Handbook), to warrant the overrule. It should be noted that the guidelines stated in the Handbook are a good starting point and sets forth the minimum standards and criteria for airport land use compatibility planning, especially in light of ALUC's fundamental responsibility to promote a high degree of compatibility between airports and surrounding land uses. As the Handbook clearly points out, ALUCs "may choose to be more restrictive than the State's guidance when their local conditions warrant doing so." (Handbook, p, viii) As it will be discussed below, based on the uniqueness of the airport, the level of service it offers, its location, and the accident history, the overrule will result in land use conficts and safety hazards, a risk that the City should not be willing to accept. For a detailed discussion of why the findings provided by the City are insufficient, please see the following: If the City proceeds with this overrule, the Division still views the City LUCE as inconsistent with the ALUP. This means the ALUC has the right to require the City to forward every project within the Airport Influence Area to the City for review. Finding 3 points out that the currently adopted ALUP is outdated and flawed. The City is aware that the ALUC is working on updating its ALUP, thus, many of the City's findings may be eliminated by the new ALUP. Perhaps the City can wait for this update before it updates its LUCE. Ideally the planning process "Provide a safe, suslainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance Calrforrrla's economy and livability " Mr. Derek Johnson September 17, 2014 Page 2 works best if the City updates its General Plan after the ALUC updates the ALUP. Then, local and State resources are not duplicated or wasted on moot issues. Finding 3 states the ALUP does not comply with the public health and safety requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. Such a statement lacks merit, as the Division is responsible for reviewing ALUPs and making the determination whether or not the ALUP meets the requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. The Division has reviewed the ALUP several times and finds that it meets the requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. Finding 4 states that the ALUP has not changed its safety zones for 37 years, since it was adopted in 1977. According to our records the ALUP was adopted in 1973 and has been amended in 2002, 2004 and 2005. It is not necessary to change safety zones unless there has been a significant change to an airport's runway or the aircraft that use the airport. Finding 5 claims that the safety zones are not accurately aligned with San Luis Obispo Airport runways. It is the Division's understanding that this is one of the items the ALUC will be updating in the draft ALUP. Finding 6 states, "State law requires ALUPs be consistent with the Airport Master Plan (AMP), the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) - approved Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). The existing ALUP is not consistent with the AMP, the ALP or the TAF." State law does require the ALUP be consistent with the AMP. Normally, an ALP and forecasts are found within an AMP, and therefore, if the ALUP is consistent with the AMP, it would also be consistent with the ALP and forecasts. State law does not require ALUPs be consistent with a TAF. This finding is vague, lacks foundation, and fails to cite to applicable statute. If you know about a section of State law that requires ALUPs to be consistent with a TAP, please set forth the referenced authority. Finding 7 again points out the State statutes direct that an ALUP must be based on an AMP and a TAF. Again, it would be helpful if the statute being used in this finding is cited. It is correct that the ALUP must be based on an AMP, but there is no mention of a TAF in the PUC. Finding 8 points out the Handbook recommends ALUPs have five or six safety zones and that the zones be as compact as possible and easily definable geometric shapes. This finding claims that the safety zones in the ALUP require complex trigonometry to define. The ALUP only has five safety zones, and four of those are easily definable geometric shapes. Regardless of what level of math it takes, the propose of the safety zones are to protect the airport. The Division believes that this is a section that should be included in the ALUC update. Finding 17 states the policies and programs in the City's LUCE and implementing zoning regulations do not replace or usurp the ALUC's authority, because the LUCE policies and programs only apply within the city limits. This finding is inaccurate. It is The Division's opinion that the proposed LUCE and implementing zoning regulations do, in fact, usurp the ALUC's authority. The ALUC's authority is not only over county land but also covers City lands around the airports in the County of San Luis Obispo. Finding 18 states the ALUP has safety zones that are unnecessary or too large without justification. This finding points to the Airport Compatibility Report prepared by the City. This Repot discusses information that is found in the Handbook regarding adjustment factors to safety zones. The Handbook has information which discusses some examples as to why an ALUC may need to adjust the generic safety zones found in the Handbook. The ALUP includes some of these adjustments to the safely zones. The Division has reviewed the adjustments and found they are necessary to keeping the land around the airport safe. The Airport Compatibility Report referenced by this overrule also indicates that the reasons why these safely °Rnnide a safe, soalalnable, inlevaled, mide,(/'mienl Irnrrsyorimion s)erlem to enhance Califondn lr econornp nod livability" Mr. Derek Johnson September 17, 2014 Page 3 zones were adjusted do, in fact, exist. The fact that these adjustment factors exist is reason enough for the ALUC to make these adjustments to the safety zones, and they have the responsibility under State taw to do SO. Findings 19, 20, and 21 contain information about the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan and the forecasts contained in this document. These findings discuss how the recession has caused a downturn in the operations at the airport. Because of this downturn, the findings discuss the TAF approved by the FAA should be used instead. The Division would like to point out that the TAF for SBP are flat line projections and not realistic. The best forecasts to use are those provided by the SBP Master Plan. Finding 37 says that an analysis of the Handbook safety zone adjustment factors was completed for SBP in Section 4.3 of the Airport Compatibility Report, and the findings indicate that no safety zone adjustments from those recommended by the Handbook are required. The following is the Division's response to the analysis of the Safety Zone Adjustment Factors was completed for SBP by a private consultant hired by the City of San Luis Obispo. The Division found six out of the eight consistently inaccurate aeronautical assumptions below, to indicate a desired outcome of "no safety zone adjustments required" from those recommended by the Handbook for each of the following bullet points: Airport Area Topography: The presence of high terrain, the edge of a precipice, or other such features may influence the location of aircraft traffic patterns and should be considered. Consultant states: High terrain exists in the area of SBP but does not impede the standard traffic pattern or preclude precision and non - precision instrument approaches and departures. Nearby Morro Bay (MQO) VOR provides positive course guidance, positive terrain avoidance and aircraft holding for precision and non - precision instrument procedure missed approaches. No safety zone adjustments required. Division's Response This is contrary to PUC section 21670, as the City's overrule will fail to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and create a disorderly expansion of the airport. The airport has rising terrain in all directions, but predominantly to the north and south. The terrain contributes to changes in flight paths on the right downwind for runway 29 (Islay Hill), causing aircraft to fly a downwind outside the hill while avoiding higher terrain to the north. Our interpretation is that these factors meet the condition set forth in Table 3,4: Safety Zone Adjustment Factors contained in the Handbook to warrant a safety zone adjustment. Boundaries Based on Geographic Features: Safety zone shapes and sizes might be adjusted in response to existing urban development such as roads, water courses, parcel lines, etc. Consultant states: With the advent of graphic information systems (GIS) this approach is less necessary than in years past. The City and County of San Luis Obispo employ GIS for accurate mapping purposes. No safety zone adjustments required. "Nowde a safe, sustainable, inlepaled, and efclem nnesporla /ion system to enhance California's economy and livability" W. Derek Johnson September 17, 2014 Page 4 Division's Response This is contrary to PUC section 21670, as the City's overrule will fail to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and create a disorderly expansion of the airport, Pilots operating in the vicinity of an airport often use key visual landmarks for position reporting. Alignment of safety zones with key geographic features may create greater containment of certain types of flight operations within a given area. This type of "intuitive" design, used for clarity of reference by all stakeholders, and especially, airborne pilots, is permissible in Table 3.4: Safety Zone Adjustment Factors contained in the Handbook and allows for a safety zone adjustment. Instrument Approach Procedure(s): Non - standard instrument procedures should be identified, as well as the extent to which they are used. Consultant states Circling Approaches: Circling approaches are charted for SBP including RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, LOC RWY I l and VOR or TACAN -A but no circling north of Runway 11 -29 is allowed for any of these procedures. The circling minimum altitudes for these procedures are at standard traffic pattern altitudes. Even though these procedures are available, there are safer, straight -in approaches available for both runway ends of Runway 11 -29. No safety zone adjustments required. Non - Precision Approaches at Low Altitudes: Non - precision instrument approaches are charted for SBP including RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, LOC RWY I I and VOR or TACAN -A, but the minimum descent altitudes for these procedures preclude descending below standard traffic pattern altitudes within the airport influence area. No safety zone adjustments required. Non - Precision Approaches Not Aligned with the Runway: One non - precision instrument approach charted for SBP (VOR or TACAN -A) is not aligned with a runway, but no circling north of Runway 11 -29 is allowed for this procedure, The circling minimum altitudes for this procedure are at or above standard traffic pattern altitudes. Even though this procedure is available, there are safer, straight -in approaches available for both runway ends of Runway 11 -29. No safety zone adjustments required. Division's Response: This is contrary to PLC section 21670, as the City's overrule will fail to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and create a disorderly expansion of the airport. Air traffic control tower staff estimates utilizing Runway I 1 about 30 percent of the time, with the remaining 70 percent being a west flow on Runway 29. Control tower staff report that instrument approach procedures are utilized about 60 percent GPS Runway 29, 30 percent ILS Runway 11, with the remaining 10 percent on the VOR -A. Circling approaches are used much less frequently than straight in procedures. Although the vast majority of aircraft arrive on Visual Approaches during clear weather and west flow line up to land on Runway 29, circling and non - aligned approaches exist at this airport. The argument that the minimums are above traffic pattern does account for the possibility of loss of visual contact with the runway while an aircraft is engaged in a visual descent to land on a non - aligned runway in a low visibility environment. Our interpretation is that these factors meet the condition set forth in Table 3A: Safety Zone Adjustment Factors contained in the Handbook to warrant a safety zone adjustment. 'Provide a s[fe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient trmuportauon system to enhance California'., economy and livability" Mr. Derek Johnson September 17, 2014 Page 5 Other Special Flight Procedures or Limitations: Single -sided traffic patterns, nearby airports, high terrain, or noise - sensitive land uses may dictate where and at what altitude aircraft fly and may need to be taken into account during safety zone delineation. Consultant states: Voluntary noise abatement procedures are established for SBP but when used, increase aircraft altitudes and increase safe operating altitudes. No safety zone adjustments required. Division's Response This is contrary to PUC section 21670, as the City's overrule will fail to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and create a disorderly expansion of the airport. Recommended noise abatement procedures may cause aircraft to fly extended upwind and downwind segments to remain over roads or avoid schools. Our interpretation is that this factor meets the condition set forth in Table 3A: Safety Zone Adjustment Factors contained in the Handbook to warrant a safety zone adjustment. Runway Use by Special - Purpose Aircraft: Fire attack, agricultural, military airplanes, and helicopters often have their own flight procedures, which need to be considered during the shaping of safety zones. Consultant states: Military transport-type aircraft and helicopters make use of the SBP runways. Military aircraft fly standard arrival and departure procedures and helicopters likewise fly standard procedures for approach, departure, and closed traffic patterns. No safety zone adjustments required. Division's Response This is contrary to PUC section 21670, as the City's overrule will fail to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and create a disorderly expansion of the airport. San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport frequently has operations by military (fixed -wing and rotorcraft), law enforcement, and other special purpose aircraft. While these aircraft typically fly standard patterns and procedures the airframe type, load configuration, and approach speeds may dictate the use of a unique flight path "at a moment's notice" as determined by each pilot -in- command while their in -flight aircraft are in -bound or out bound to the airport. Our interpretation is that this factor meets the condition set forth in Table 3A: Safety Zone Adjustment Factors contained in the Handbook to warrant a safety zone adjustment. Displaced Landing Thresholds: Consultant states: Runway l 1 has a displaced threshold of 800 feet and Runway 29 has a displaced threshold of 500 feet. The safety zones have not been adjusted to reduce their length commensurate with these displaced thresholds thereby increasing the safety factor for each runway. Safety Zone Reduction Possible. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient tronsparlation system to enhance California's ecauomp and livability '• Mr. Derek Johnson September 17, 2014 Page 6 Division's Response: Although the Handbook's Landing Aircraft Accident Location Pattern Zones would be pulled back closer into the airport due to this airport having displaced thresholds, however, the Take -off Aircraft Accident Location Pattern Zone would remain unchanged. The 83,000+ aircraft operations count at this airport, most on Runway 29 and Runway 11, would not be of a low enough count to warrant pulling back any runway safety protection zones. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, since 1990, there have been 37 aircraft accidents at or nearby San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and 8 have resulted in fatalities. Protecting people and property on the ground from the potential consequences of near - airport aircraft accidents is a fundamental land use compatibility- planning objective. While the chance of an aircraft injuring someone on the ground is historically quite low, an aircraft accident is a high consequence event. To protect people and property on the ground from the risks of near - airport aircraft accidents, some form of restrictions on land use are essential. The two principal methods for reducing the risk of injury and property damage on the ground are to limit the number of persons in an area and to limit the area covered by occupied structures. The State Aeronautics Act requires the overruling of an ALUC by a two- thirds vote, a mandated process that shall be followed. Attached hereto are letters from the California Fair Political Practice Commission (FPPC) that prohibit certain Council members from voting on the subject over rule based on a conflict of interest. We will defer to the FPPC's letter, without formulating conclusions. Also, we do understand that recently, the FPPC regulations may have changed; however, we feel that the conclusion by the FPPC will remain the same. Based on this, the Division believes that the City has not complied with the two- thirds voting requirement to proceed with this overrule. Sincerely, RON BOLYA Aviation Planner c: Xzandrea Fowler, San Luis Obispo County ALUC, San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building, County Government Center, 976 Osos Street, Room 300, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 -1002 Kevin R. Bumen C.A.E., Interim Director of Airports, County of San Luis Obispo Airports, 903 -5 Airport Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-8711 Danae J. Aitchison, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General's Office Attachments: L FPPC -13 -160- Response to SLO 2. SLO -City Attorney to FPPC -I 3160_searchable "Provide a safe, saatainaW Xnegrated, and egicienf iranspoiYntfan s)Rfen1 to enfmnre Calffornia's econowy and fivaLif fy" z FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION 428 1 Street • Suite 620 • Sacramento, CA 95814 -2329 (916) 322 -5660 • Fax (916) 322 -0886 February 10, 2014 J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 Re: Your Request for Advice Our File No. A -13 -160 Dear Ms. Dietrick: This letter responds to your request for advice on behalf of San Luis Obispo City Councilmembers Dan Carpenter and John Ashbaugh regarding the conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform Act (the "Act").' This advice is bused on the facts you have provided in your request. The Fair Political Practices Commission ( "Commission ") does not act as a finder of fact when it renders advice. (In re Oglesby (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 71; Section 83114,) Additionally, our advice is based solely on the provisions of the Act unless otherwise specified. Thus, in providing this advice we offer no opinion on the applicability, if any, of other ethics laws outside the Act. QUESTIONS 1. May Councilman Dan Carpenter participate in the consideration of General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element policy updates that include proposed policies applicable to a larger parcel near his residence where one outer boundary of the larger parcel is within 500 feet of the Councilman's residence? t The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81 WO through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code. unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained to Sections IS I 10 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Tide 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated. File No. A -13 -160 Page No. 2 2. May Councilman John Ashbaugh participate in the consideration of General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element policy where the proposed policy language is to remove the interim open space designation within 500 feet of his residence? 3. If neither Councilman may participate, can staff segment the consideration of the policies applicable to each site and have the Councilmember whose real property interests are implicated recuse himself and leave the room only during the discussion of the site that affects his property? If so, are there any requirements regarding the sequence in which the two sites must be considered other than that they must each be considered and concluded before the Council as a whole moves on to consideration of the remainder of the LUCE policies? CONCLUSION 1, No. Councilman Carpenter's personal residence is directly involved in this governmental decision. Therefore, he may not make, participate in making, or influence this decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the governmental decision will have any financial effect on his real property. 2. No. Councilman Ashbaugh's personal residence is directly involved in this governmental decision. Therefore, he may not make, participate in making, or influence this decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the governmental decision will have any financial effect on his real property. 3. Under certain circumstances, a public official disqualified from one decision may participate in other related decisions provided that the official's participation does not affect the decision in which he or she has a conflict of interest, as discussed below. The city council may use any means of random selection that is impartial and equitable in order to determine which official will have the matter in which he has a conflict considered first, thereby allowing him to participate in all remaining decisions. FACTS San Luis Obispo has undertaken a grant funded update of its General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements ( "LUCE "). When the City Council approved the application for the grant, the Council gave direction to staff to focus the update to address community issues, but not to significantly alter the policy direction reflected in the current General Plan elements. The City Council appointed a resident task force to assist in the LUCE update process. This 15 member group, called the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update (TF -LUCE) worked to review proposed changes to the draft elements and to provide direction and guidance regarding new policies and programs. The TF -LUCE draft of the Land Use Element was reviewed by the Planning Commission, which made several minor changes in response to public testimony and to clarify intent in several places. The draft LUCE is now File No. A -13 -160 Page No. 3 ready for City Council review and endorsement to be included as part of the project description to be studied throggh the EIR. The development of alternatives for San Luis Obispo has been a two -step process: the first step proposed physical alternatives; and the second step proposed policy changes, which the Council will evaluate at special meetings. The physical alternatives portion of the process included decisions on inclusion or exclusion of specific sites throughout the City in the project description for study in the EIR. The legislative drafts of the proposed updated elements primarily contain edits to existing policy language. However, new policies and programs have also been included. Staff has identified two areas of potential changes being considered as part of the update that are within 500 feet of Councilmembers Ashbaugh and Carpenter's respective properties. Councilmember Carpenter's property is within 500 feet of a larger parcel that under the LUCE proposal would change from low density residential designation to a mix of low and medium density residential with addition of a probation department facility. Councilmember Ashbaugh's residence is within 500 feet of an area where the LUCE proposes to remove the designation of "Interim Open Space." ANALYSIS The Act's conflict of interest provisions ensure that public officials will perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial interest of persons who have supported them. (Section 81001(b).) Specifically, Section 87100 prohibits any public official from malting, participating in making, or otherwise using his or her official position to influence a governmental decision in which the official has a financial interest. A public official has a "financial interest" in a governmental decision, within the meaning of the Act, when it is "reasonably foreseeable" that the governmental decision will have a material financial effect on one or more of the public official's interests. (Section 87103; Regulation 18700(x).) In order to determine whether a public official has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a given governmental decision, the Commission has adopted an eight -step analytical framework. (Regulation 18700(b) (1) -(8).) The general rule, however, is that a conflict of interest exists whenever a public official makes a governmental decision that has a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on one or more of his or her interests. (Section 87103.) File No. A -13 -160 Page No. 4 Step One: Are Councilmembers Dan Carpenter and John Ashbaugh public officials? The Act's conflict of interest provisions apply only to "public officials." (Section 87100.) A "public official" is "every member, officer, employee, or consultant of a state or local government agency." (Section 82048, Regulation 18701.) As members of the San Luis Obispo City Council, Councilmembers Carpenter and Ashbaugh are public officials within the meaning of the Act. Step Two: Will City Councilmembers Carpenter and Ashbaugh be making, participating in making, or influencing a governmental decision? A public official "makes a governmental decision" when the official, acting within the purview of his or her office or position, votes on a matter, obligates or commits his or her agency to any course of action, or enters into any contractual agreement on behalf of his or her agency. (Regulation 18702. 1.) A public official "participates in making" a governmental decision when he or she, without substantive review, negotiates, advises, or makes recommendations regarding a decision. (Regulation 18702.2.) A public official is "influencing a governmental decision" if he or she contacts, or appears before, or otherwise attempts to influence any member, officer, employee, or consultant of the County regarding the decisions. (Regulation 18702.3.) The members of the city council will be called upon to consider updates of the city's LUCE. Therefore, City Councilmembers Carpenter and Ashbaugh will be making, participating in making, or otherwise using their official positions to influence a governmental decision. Step Three: What are the councilmembers' Interests as specified in Section 87103- - The possible sources of conflict of interest for the public officials? A public official has a "financial interest" in a governmental decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official, a member of his or her immediate family, or on any one of five enumerated interests. (Section 87103; Regulations 18703 - 18703.5.) The applicable interests include: • an interest in a business entity in which he or she has a director indirect investment of $2,000 or more (Section 87103(a); Regulation 18703.1(a)); or in which he or she is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management (Section 87103(d); Regulation 18703.1(b)); an interest in real property in which he or she has a direct or indirect interest of $2,000 or more (Section 87103(6); Regulation 18703.2); File No. A -13 -160 Page No. 5 • an interest in any source of income, including promised income that aggregates to $500 or more within 12 months prior to the decision (Section 87103(c); Regulation 18703.3); • an interest in any source of gifts to him or her if the gifts aggregate to $440 or more within 12 months prior to the decision (Section 87103(e); Regulation 18703.4); • A public official has an interest in his or her personal expenses, income, assets, or liabilities, as well as those of his or her immediate family. This is also knows as the "personal financial effects" rule (Section 87103; Regulation 18703.5); • Indirect investment or interest means any investment or interest owned by a business entity in which the official owns directly, indirectly, or beneficially a l0- percent interest or greater. (Section 87103(e).) Both Councilmember Carpenter and Ashbaugh own real property within the LUCE boundaries. Accordingly, each has a potentially disqualifying interest in the real property he owns. Because your question concerns only the real property of these public officials, and you have not provided any facts concerning other possible interests, our analysis is limited to the real property interests you have identified. Step Four: Are the officials' interests directly or indirectly involved in the governmental decision? Real property in which a public official has an interest is considered directly involved if the property is located within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is the subject of the governmental decision. (Regulation 18704.2(a)(1).) Real property that is not directly involved in a governmental decision is considered indirectly involved. Council Member Carpenter: Councilmember Carpenter's residence is located within 500 feet of the boundaries of property that is the subject of governmental decisions, namely the General Hospital site, which the LUCE proposes to change from low density residential designation to a mix of low and medium density residential designation with public facilities (a probation department facility). Therefore, Councilmember Carpenters residence is directly involved in decisions on the General Hospital site and would be indirectly involved in the other general plan decisions. Councilmember Ashbaugh: Councilmember Ashbaugh's residence is within 500 feet of an area currently designated as "Interim Open Space." The LUCE proposes to remove the designation of "Interim Open Space" for this area, and to adopt specific policies to address hillside and open space preservation in accordance with other city policies. Therefore, Councilmember Ashbaugh's real File No. A -13 -160 Page No. 6 property interest is directly involved in the governmental decisions related to the Interim Open Space parcel and would be indirectly involved in the other general plan decisions. Step Five: What are the applicable materiality standards? Regulation 18705.2(a)(1) provides that the financial effect of a governmental decision on real property that is directly involved in the governmental decision is presumed to be material. This presumption may be rebutted by proof that it is not reasonably foreseeable that the governmental decision will have any financial effect, not even a "penny's worth," on the real property. This is known as the "one penny rule." With respect to decisions that indirectly involve the respective officials' property Regulation 18705.2(b) provides: "...The financial effect of a governmental decision on real property which is indirectly involved in the governmental decision is presumed not to be material. This presumption may be rebutted by proof that there are specific circumstances regarding the governmental decision, its financial effect, and the nature of the real property in which the public official has an economic interest, which make it reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect on the real property in which the public official has an interest. "(A) The development potential or income producing potential of the real property in which the official has an economic interest; "(B) The use of the real property in which the official has an economic interest; "(C) The character of the neighborhood including, but not limited to, substantial effects on: traffic, view, privacy, intensity of use, noise levels, air emissions, or similar traits of the neighborhood." You have not provided facts concerning decisions that may have an indirect material financial affect the officials' real property; therefore, we do not further analyze potential indirect affects. Step SIx: Reasonable forseeability: Is it reasonably foreseeable that the governmental decision will have a material Financial effect on one or more of the officials' interests? The sixth step is deciding if it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be a material financial effect on one or more of the council members' interests. (Regulation 18700(b)(6); Regulation 18706.) File No. A -13 -160 Page No. 7 For a material financial effect to be foreseeable on an official's interest, it need not be certain or even likely that it will happen. However, the financial effect must be more than a mere possibility. (Regulation 18706(x); In re Tkonter (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 198.) Ultimately, whether a material financial effect is foreseeable at the time a decision is made depends on facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. (/n re Thomer, supra.) Because the Commission does not act as a finder of fact in providing advice (fn re Oglesby(1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 71) the forseeability of a particular financial effect is a determination that must be left, in most instances, to the informed judgment of the public official after a complete consideration of all the facts before him. Given the facts you have presented along with the applicable materiality standard, if the decision regarding the LUCE designations on the properties within 500 feet of the officials' directly involved real property interest would result in a financial effect of even a penny, the official would have a disqualifying conflict of interest. Accordingly, Councilmembers Carpenter and Ashbaugh have a prohibited conflict of interest and may not participate in the above LUCE decisions unless an exception applies. Segmentation Under certain circumstances, a public official disqualified from one decision may participate in other related decisions provided that the official's participation does not affect the decision in which he or she has a conflict of interest." (In re Owen (1976) 2 FPPC Ops. 77). Commission staff has consistently advised that an official may segregate a decision in which the official has a conflict of interest from other decisions in which he or she does not have a conflict of interest to allow participation by the official in one or several related decisions as long as the decisions are not too interrelated to be considered separately. The Huffaker Advice Letter. No. A -86 -343 outlined a procedure to be followed in severing one decision from another. In 2003, the Commission codified its advice, providing the conditions under which governmental decisions may be segmented and the method to follow to allow participation by officials who would otherwise have a conflict of interest. Regulation 18709 provides the rules for such "segmentation" of a governmental decision: "(a) An agency may segment a decision in which a public official has a financial interest, to allow participation by the official, provided all of the following conditions apply: "(1) The decision in which the official has a financial interest can be broken down into separate decisions that are not inextricably interrelated to the decision in which the official has a disqualifying financial interest; File No. A -13 -160 Page No. 8 "(2) The decision in which the official has a financial interest is segmented from the other decisions; "(3) The decision in which the official has a financial interest is considered first and a final decision is reached by the agency without the disqualified official's participation in any way; and "(4) Once the decision in which the official has a financial interest has been made, the disqualified public official's participation does not result in a reopening of, or otherwise financially affect, the decision from which the official was disqualified. "(b) For purposes of this regulation, decisions are "inextricably interrelated" when the result of one decision will effectively determine, affirm, nullify, or alter the result of another decision." "(c) Budget Decisions and General Plan Adoption or Amendment Decisions Affecting an Entire Jurisdiction; Once all the separate decisions related to a budget or general plan affecting the entire jurisdiction have been finalized, the public official may participate in the final vote to adopt or reject the agency's budget or to adopt, reject, or amend the general plan." More than one decision can be "segmented," so long as they are decided in an order that would prevent one decision from determining or altering the result of one of the other segmented decisions, each of which must of course comply with the conditions prescribed in Regulation 18709. Under Regulation 18709 (a)(3), the decision in which an official has a financial interest must be considered first. In this case, there are two officials who each have a financial interest with respect to different segmented decisions. Since only one decision may, by definition, be considered "first," in this circumstance, we would interpret "first" to mean "before that official may participate in any of the remaining segmented decisions in which he does not have a conflict of interest." Accordingly, if you determine that the rules under Regulation 18709 allowing segmentation of the decisions apply, the two decisions, in which either Councilmember Carpenter or Councilmember Ashbaugh has a conflict of interest, must be considered before the remaining decisions in which neither have a conflict of interest. Neither official may participate in any of the segmented decisions until the decision in which he has a conflict of interest is reached, with each member leaving the room and not participating in any discussion or decision affecting the designated area for which he has a conflict of interest. Therefore, the official who has a conflict in the first decision considered may participate in the remaining decisions while the official with a conflict in the second decision considered may not participate until after the third decision. File No. A -13 -160 Page No. 9 If neither decision determines or alters the result of the other segmented decision, you may use any means of random selection that is impartial and equitable in order to determine which official will have the matter in which he has a conflict considered first, thereby allowing him to participate in all remaining decisions. Whatever method is used, both matters in which one of the two officials has a conflict must be considered in the random selection process and each must have an equal likelihood of being chosen first. (Heisinger Advice Letter, No. A -95- 333; Thorson Advice Letter, No. A -04 -238.) If you have other questions on this matter, please contact me at (916) 322 -5660. Sincerely, Zackery P. Morazzini eneral Counsel By: Emelyn Rodriguez Counsel, Legal Division �1 ER:jgl ��► � �i ll '�' �� City Of sun Us QBIs p o 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.3249 ,i December 23, 2013 13-( / Q VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Fair Political Practices Commission =428 J Street, Suite 620 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Request for Written Conflict of Interest Advice for City Council Members Ashbaugh and Carpenter To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to government Code Section 83114(b), I write on behalf of City Council Members Dan Carpenter and John Ashbaugh, both of whom have authorized me to seek this advice on their behal f. Questions Presented: On January 14, 2014, the City Council is scheduled to review the Planning Commission's recommended changes to the Land Use Element and direct any desired changes to those recommendations for purposes of inclusion in the project description for Environmental Impact Report. Specifically, the actions before the Council on January 14 will be as follows: • Review the Planning Commission's recommended changes to the Land Use Element (LUE) and provide direction to staff regarding edits or changes, • Adopt a resolution identifying the updated legislative draft of the LUE as part of the project description for the Land Use and Circulation Elements update to be evaluated through the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). I . Can Councilman Dan Carpenter participate in the consideration of General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element policy updates that include proposed policies applicable to a larger parcel near his residence where one outer boundary of the larger parcel is within 500 teet of the Councilman's residence, but the area potentially affected by the policy change is well beyond 500 feet from his residence and where the proposed policy would not alter neighborhood character (see attached map and policy summary)? 2. Can Councilman John Ashbaugh participate in the consideration of General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element policy updates that include proposed policies applicable to a parcel near his residence currently zoned interim open space, where the proposed policy language is to The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services. programs and activities Telecommunications Device for the Deal (805) 781 -7410. FPPC December 23, 2013 Page 2 remove that designation and adopt specific policies to address the special site considerations to require hillside and open space preservation in accordance with other City policies. 3. If neither Councilman may participate, can staff segment the consideration of the policies applicable to each site and have the Councilmember whose real property interests are implicated recuse himself and leave the room only during the discussion of the site that affects his property? If so, are there any requirements regarding the sequence in which the two sites must be considered other than that they must each be considered and concluded before the Council as a whole moves on to consideration of the remainder of the LUCE policies? Background: The City has undertaken a grant funded update of its General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE). When the City Council approved the application for the grant, the Council gave direction to staff to focus the update to address community issues, but not to significantly alter the policy direction reflected in the current General Plan elements. The City Council appointed a resident task force to assist in the LUCE update process. This 15 member group, called the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update (TF -LUCE) worked to review proposed changes to the draft elements and to provide direction and guidance regarding new policies and programs. The TF -LUCE draft of the Land Use Element was reviewed by the Planning Commission, which made several minor changes in response to public testimony and to clarify intent in several places. The draft LUE is now ready for City Council review and endorsement to be included as part of the project description to be studied through the EIR. The development of alternatives for San Luis Obispo has been a two-step process: the first step proposed physical alternatives; and the second step proposed policy changes, which the Council will evaluate at special meetings on January 14th and January 28th. The physical alternatives portion of the process included decisions on inclusion or exclusion of specific sites throughout the City in the project description for study in the EIR. Prior to the Council's consideration of the physical alternatives it was determined that there were two sites be considered that were within 500 feet of the residences of the Mayor and Councilman Carpenter (that site near the Mayor has now been excluded from consideration). The site that has a boundary within 500 feet of Councilman Carpenter's residence is now the subject of proposed policies, driving the current inquiry regarding Councilman Carpenter. There was no proposed physical alternative involving the property adjacent to Councilman Ashbaugh's property, so the inquiry here arises solely out of proposed policies at issue here. The proposed physical alternatives were endorsed for further study by the City Council in October 2013. During that step, the consideration of two potential sites where potential real property conflicts were identified were segmented and separate, final Council actions were taken on each site, with the Mayor and Council member Carpenter both recusing themselves during the discussion of the sites. The proposed policy changes will be reviewed and evaluated by the City Council at special meetings on January 14th and January 28th for the Land Use Element and Circulation Element respectively and both Council members Carpenter and Ashbaugh would like to be able to participate in discussions and provide direction on proposed policies to be included as part of the project description. FPPC December 23, 2013 Page 3 The legislative drafts of the proposed updated elements primarily contain edits to existing policy language. However, new policies and programs have also been included. Staff has identified two areas of potential changes being considered as part of the update that are close to the 500' buffers from Council- member Ashbaugh and Carpenter's respective properties. The proposed policies affecting the property near Councilman Ashbaugh's residence are as follows: SPECIAL PLANNING AREA — BISHOP KNOLL A notable change proposed in this chapter is to remove the designation of "Interim Open Space" and to include those designated areas having sensitive site design issues as part of the Special Focus Areas chapter. Proposed General Plan policies regarding this special area: North Side of Foothill (Bishop Knoll) Future development of this area shall address open space requirements under 1. 12.7 and open space buffers In accordance with Conservation and Open Space Element policy 8.3.2. This area shall be subject to Architectural Review to ensure consideration of hillside and resource protection; circulation and access, and transition to existing neighborhoods. The steep hillside should be dedicated as Open Space and residential lots grouped at the bottom of the hill closer to Foothill. Development shall provide a parking lot and trail access to Bishops Peak. Circulation connectivity shall be provided to Los Cerros Drive. Density shall be limited to 7 units/acre as modified for slope under the Zoning Ordinance. Please see map on the following page showing Counciimember Ashbaugh's property in relation to an area of potential change. FPPC December 23, 2013 Page 4 John Ashbaugh 500' Property Buffer v7 r 1 III I / l`Y li i OVMSPMAM Legend rt QC..rd MMlePaal T_ 15W&AW GP Land Use DesiymUm LMOUSE Highland itkft-Ow5R= LMDOM"F . cpwsr� i>t■ P� A Cerro Ra r � .� Foothil Del Norte Ramona Del Sur w ro S w5 250 5 so Feet P. F SL®Q� riS FPPC December 23, 2013 Page 5 The policies affecting the General Hospital site, one boundary of which is near Councilmember Carpenter's residence are as follows: OGeneral Hospital Site rn meimai :c�U m x rcnr� win me un.aie vrtCiry m� onrmta. a�y�aese wises azra sv,,pre xJRr a tMt � nevfC YMiU>� cart f# men pa :vt�a ®i . s;urct n vmvrtism� es aysz reai7arccl cnnhans rassaa. 7'hefitelfil f siu indrdes ogamtY�'� Ply ecaida�r theoN �� buede� [»its p4nred m reirrxin as znaffex! peaanerrt fadnyl and lards bound thefaa4 ands behrcd the hmprw bia'idat Nat ana m de Ne Ws urban Rewve Finewl bedesgnavw as public ffw ersv�gACc faciEnjF and a rarpeof resdentizf uses [tav oensdy aM fdedssn oentiry RecdCnial) aid v& xwhde the abft m support reidenbW ate, tnnsrtraizi care use, and other rmdentW yes mrmr&M mitt dwadpcert aims, rt+e rerradinlrseaoumlde Ne Ws urban ReservefiawM mnar asopmSpx The Cityshabseettos pvmanern prwe[S W orthe open space oumde of the urban reserve Pre W pattaf anyderebgnesr: pmpoat The urdeaebped portion of the sire on the souttmestsde ormhnsm Avenvrlf remain dit-gr ed For Pubre 1S General Hospital site: Proposed change from Low Density Residential to mix of Low and Medium Density Residential with Public Facilities shown for current location of Probation Department facilities (see red ovals). Proposed General Plan policies regarding this special area: Alrita Properties (special focus area standards) Future development of this area shall address hillside planning requirements under 6.2.7 B. This area shall be subject to Architectural Review to ensure consideration of hillside and resource protection; circulation and access; visual impacts, and transition to existing neighborhoods. Additional analysis will need to occur in the LUCE EiR to evaluate potential water service issues. While there is a pump station nearby, more analysis is needed to determine if the City's water distribution system can adequately serve development in this area. Density shall be limited to 7 units/acre as modified for slope under the Zoning Ordinance. FPPC December 23, 2013 Page G EXISTING HILL SIDE STANDARDS Existing General Plan policies regarding this area: The Goldtree area extends up the hill from the Alrita Street neighborhood. This is a minor expansion area which can accommodate single - family houses. 1. In addition to meeting the usual criteria for approving minor annexations, this area should: I. Provide a gravity -flow water system giving standard levels of service to all developed parts of the expansion area and correcting water - service deficiencies in the Alrita Street neighborhood; ii. Correct downslope drainage problems to which development within the expansion area would contribute. M. A development plan or specific plan for the whole expansion area should be adopted before any part of it is annexed, subdivided, or developed. (Existing houses inside the urban reserve line need not be annexed along with any new subdivision) iv. All new houses and major additions to houses should be subject to architectural review. Please see map on the following page showing Councilmember Carpenter's property in relation to an area of potential change. FPPC December 23, 2013 Page 7 Dan Carpenter 500' Property Buffer Legend OCnuoll ea es Pmm L isweLaw -41 � 5 I S app ' 1' [' �^ SO 258 0 no Fed y,�F 3L0�'q�'_3"r R7 ®� S FPPC December 23, 2013 Page 8 The proposed policies applicable to each of the sites adjacent to the Councilmembers' residences would not affect any significant changes in the fundamental character or development potential of the areas and don't convey any right or entitlement to develop either site. Development of the sites would require subsequent applications by property owners, which would entail significant environmental and discretionary review by the City. Very truly yours, SIB u, -tip/ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney AS VJcp cc: John Ashbaugh Dan Carpenter September 18, 2014 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SEP 18 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Via Overnight Mail, Email and Hand Delivery San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 djohnson @slocity.org, kmurry @slocity.org Dear Council Members: Chairman: Roger Oxborrow Commissioners: Bill Borgsmiller Michael Cripe Dustin Leno Terry Orton Allen Settle Gerrit Vanderziel Enclosed please find the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) comments on the City of San Luis Obispo's (City) Notice of Intent to Overrule. The ALUC is committed to working with the City and hopes that agreement can be reached regarding the appropriate criteria for determining whether proposed developments are compatible with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Cordially, S44L� Roger Oxborfow, Chair Airport. Land Use Commission cc: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Enclosure September 18, 2014 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Via Overnight Mail, Email and Hand Delivery San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 djohnson @slocity.org, kmurry @slocity.org Dear Council Members: Chairman: Roger Oxborrow Commissioners: Bill Borgsmiller Michael Cripe Dustin Leno Terry Orton Allen Settle Gerrit Vanderziel The San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) received the City of San Luis Obispo's (City) Notice of Intent to Overrule the ALUC's determination that the City's Proposed Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) and Zoning Ordinance Updates are inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (ALUP) on August 20, 2014. In accordance with Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676(b), the ALUC hereby submits the following comments to the Draft Findings (Findings) for inclusion in the record. I.BACKGROUND 1. The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) is a vital resource, not only for the City but for the entire County of San Luis Obispo ( "County "). According to a 2013 study performed by the California Airports Council (CAC), SBP provides over one hundred (100) on- airport jobs and three (3) times as many additional off -site support jobs. Overall, according to CAC data, SBP contributes more than seventy four million dollars ($74,000,000.00) annually to the local economy. 2. In recognition of the importance of public use airports throughout the state, the legislature enacted the State Aeronautics Act, codified in PUC Section 21001 et seq. (Division 9, Part 1) (SAA). Chapter 4, Article 3.5 of the SAA calls for the establishment of airport land use commissions (ALUCs) in all counties containing an airport served by a scheduled airline or an Page 1 of 65 airport operated for the benefit of the general public with limited exception (see PUC Section 21670(b)). The purposes of Article 3.5 are set forth in PUC Section 21670(a): (1) It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems (emphasis added). (2) It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses (emphasis added). 3. One of the powers and duties of an ALUC is the formulation of one (1) or more ALUPs that "provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport [ ... ] [and that] safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general" (see PUC Section 21674 and 21675(a)). The ALUP(s) "shall include and 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 anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years" (see PUC Section 21675(a)). In preparing its ALUP(s), an ALUC "shall by guided by" information contained in the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) prepared by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (emphasis added) (see PUC Section 21674.7). 4. The ALUC initially adopted the ALUP in 1977. The ALUC subsequently updated the ALUP in 2002, 2004 and most recently in 2005. The 2005 update to the ALUP contained revisions based on the 1998 update to the Airport Master Plan (the then current Airport Master Plan) and included provisions negotiated between the City and the ALUC for development within the Marguerita Specific Plan Area. 5. Despite severe budgetary constraints, approximately two (2) years ago, the ALUC commenced efforts to update the ALUP based on, among other things, the 2005 update to the Airport Master Plan and to accommodate a request by the City to convert the analog zones contained within the current ALUP into GIS format. 6. During the same time period, the City's Community Development Department (CDD) prepared the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates. In connection with this effort, the City hired Johnson Aviation at an approximate cost of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00). As evidenced by a multitude of written correspondence, the CDD greatly expanded its request in connection with the ALUP update and pressed the ALUC to make significant changes to the ALUP. More specifically, the City requested that the ALUC revise the Page 2 of 65 ALUP to make the AL UP consistent with the recommendations ultimately set forth in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report prepared by Johnson Aviation (Johnson Report) and contained within the Airport Area Chapter (Chapter 7) of the LUCE Update and the Airport Overlay Zone Chapter (Chapter 17.57) of the Zoning Ordinance Update. At the special meeting of the ALUC on September 5, 2014, the City reiterated its desire to have the ALUC "bring the policies and objectives of the ALUP closer to compliance with the City of SLO General Plan" (emphasis added). 7. The ALUC and ALUC staff have had to expend a great deal of time and resources responding to the City's expanded request and the analysis contained within the Johnson Report. In addition, although the City initially expressed a willingness to provide funding for the generation of updated noise contours for the ALUP amendment, the City later withdrew its offer based on unwillingness to fund any scenarios not endorsed by the City. Consequently, the ALUC has not been able to complete the ALUP update. A. REFERRAL OF THE LUCE AND ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATES 8. The City referred the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates to the ALUC on June 13, 2014, as required by PUC Section 21676(b). 9. As the ALUC is in the process of amending the ALUP as described in Paragraphs 5 and 7 supra, both the City's referral and any subsequent override are premature. i. Character of the Airport Policies set forth in the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates 10. Prior to its referral of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates to the ALUC, the CDD repeatedly and emphatically assured both the ALUC and Caltrans that the City had no intention of developing a de facto airport land use compatibility plan for SBP within the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates and that any inconsistency with the ALUP would be project specific. 11. In contravention of the assurances described in Paragraph 10 supra, the Airport Area Chapter (Chapter 7) of the LUCE Update and the Airport Overlay Zone Chapter (Chapter 17.57) of the Zoning Ordinance Update constitute precisely such a de facto plan as evidenced by the following provisions contained therein: t Policies in this section apply to the Airport Area, as shown in F'irrre 8 and represent the Ai Mort Influence Area subject to airport safety, noise height, and overflight standards (italics added). Airport Land Use Plan ' Language added as part of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates appears in underline and stricken language appears in dough. Page 3 of 65 Land use density and intensity shall carefully balance noise impacts and the progression in the degree of reduced safety risk further a n from the runway consistent with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines. The City shall use the Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity as a reasonablv foreseeable projection of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for long- term land use planning purposes. Development should be permitted only if it is eons ntent m4th ,4th the San Luis s 111-,;x. a County A; ert Land Use PI Airport Safety Zones Airport Safety Zones, shall be consistent with California Airport Land Use Plate Handbook guidelines and substantiated by the San Luis Obispo County Airport Master Plan activity forecasts as used for noise planning purposes. Airport Noise Compatibility The City shall use the aircraft noise analysis prepared for the Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Report as an accurate mapping of the long term noise impact of the airport's aviation activity that is tied to the ultimate facilities development depicted in the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan. The City shall use the 60 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour (FAA and State aircraft noise planning as the threshold for new urban residential areas. Interiors of new residential structures shall be constructed to meet a maximum 45 db CNEL. County Airport Land Use Plan The City shall continue to work with the County Airport Land Use Commission to strive to achieve consistency between the County Airport Land Use Plan and the Q 's General Plan. If consistency cannot be achieved, the City shall preserve and maintain as a plausible alternative its constitutional land use authority to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission with regard to adopting General Plan policies that are consistent with the purposes of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, State Aeronautics Act and State Law. Applicable sections of the Zoning Regulations and the Specific Plan shall be amended accordingly (italics added).2 NEW PROGRAMS Airport Overlay Zone The City shall create an Airport Overlay Zone category to codt:& airport compatibility criteria identified in the general plan for those areas located within the Airport Influence Area consistent with the rQuirements of the California State Aeronautics Act (Cal. Pub. Utilities Code, Section 21670, et secs) which z This section contains the only reference to the ALUC's ALUP within Chapter 7 of the LUCE Update. Page 4 of 65 establishes statewide requirements for air ort land use conatibility plannipg, the California_ Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which is published by the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics to support and amplify the State Aeronautics Act re uirements and other related federal and state requirements relating, to airport land use compatibility piannin . Implementation of the compatibility policies will be accompanied through the Airport Land Use Zoning; Co (italics added). 12. In its comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates dated July 18, 2014 (attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference), Caltrans opined that the airport policies contained in the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates constitute a de facto airport land use compatibility plan and that such a plan is violative of the SAA: Even if the time and expense of an overrule is pursued by the City, the proposed airport programs and policies in the LUCE are so comprehensive that they have the net effect of amending the ALUCP and its policies, circumventing the ALUC's project review process, and nearly establishing a separate airport land use commission that would replace the County's. State law does not support such a wholesale transfer of airport land use compatibility planning to any other entity. State law specifically authorizes the establishment of AL UCs in a manner consistent with the law, and authorizes only them to formulate and adopt AL UCPs (italics added). 13. No local land use agency within the state has ever adopted such a de facto airport land use compatibility plan within its general plan or zoning ordinance. 14. Given that the ALUC is in the process of amending the ALUP and that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates constitute a de facto airport land use compatibility plan, the area surrounding SBP could be considered a "no -ALUP" area. Consequently, pursuant to PUC Section 21675.1(a) and (b), the City may be required to submit all actions, regulations and permits within the vicinity of the SBP to the ALUC for review and approval. 15. Based on the provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates set forth in Paragraph 11 supra and a number of specific findings attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, the ALUC determined that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are inconsistent with the ALUP on July 16, 2014. Although the ALUC based its determination of inconsistency on the contents of the ALUP adopted in 2005, the findings also included statements that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are inconsistent with the SAA. Given the pending ALUC update and reference in the LUCE Update to continued efforts to "reach consistency," it should be noted that the Handbook provides that the following two Page 5 of 65 specific tests should be considered by an ALUC when it determines whether local planning policies are fully consistent with the ALUP: (a) Whether any direct conflicts between the two plans have been eliminated; and (b) Whether the local plan delineates a mechanism or process for ensuring that individual land use development proposals comply with the ALUC's adopted compatibility criteria (emphasis added). As discussed in Paragraph 11 supra, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates make no reference to compliance with the ALUC's adopted compatibility criteria. Consequently, notwithstanding the actual content of the final ALUP update, unless the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are amended to reference the ALUP, it is difficult to imagine a set of circumstances under which the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would satisfy (b). B. Notice of Intent to Overrule 16. Pursuant to PUC Section 21676(b), in order for the City to adopt the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates, the City Council must overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency by a two - thirds vote. The vote must be supported by "specific findings that the proposed action [adoption of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates] is consistent with the purposes of [Article 3.5] stated in [PUC] Section 21670" and set forth in Paragraph 2 supra. 17. PUC Section 21670(a)(2) provides that "land use measures [should] minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses" (emphasis added). In addition, PUC Section 21670(a)(1) provides that "the creation of new noise and safety problems" should be prevented (emphasis added). Consequently, in order to satisfy the requirements of PUC Section 21676(b), the City must adopt findings that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates do not permit any noise and safety hazards not permitted under the AL UP. 18. In addition, all such findings should be supported by substantial evidence in the record and provide a clear link between such evidence and the decision reached (see California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres (1992) 9 Cal.AppAth 1384). 19. PUC Section 21676(b) further requires the City to provide the ALUC and Caltrans with a copy of its proposed decision to overrule and findings at least forty five (45) days prior to its final decision to overrule the ALUC. The ALUC and Caltrans may provide comments to the City within thirty (30) days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If the comments are not available within the time prescribed, the City can proceed without them. Page 6 of 65 Although any comments submitted by the ALUC and Caltrans are advisory, they must be included in the record of the City's final decision to overrule. 20. On August 20, 2014, the City submitted a Notice of Intent to Overrule, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference, including Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) A Resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo Directing Staff to File with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (AL UC) and Caltrans (Division of Aeronautics) Draft Findings that the Proposed Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update is Consistent with the Purposes Set forth in Public Utilities Code Section 21670 and that the City therefore Intends to Overrule the ALUC's Determination that the LUCE is Inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (City Resolution). The City Resolution contains forty two (42) Findings as Exhibit B to substantiate its position that the proposed LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the purposes set forth in PUC Section 21670. i. Liability Shift 21. PUC Section 21678 states that "[w]ith 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, the PUC provides that if the City overrules the ALUC, the County will be absolved of any liability for damage to property or injury to persons due to aircraft accidents within the Airport Planning Area resulting from the overrule. Although the PUC does not explicitly state that such liability will be assumed by the City, liability will be presumed by any future litigants. II. RESPONSE TO THE CITY'S FINDINGS A. General Comments i. Finding Based on the Johnson Report 22. Finding 1 states that the Johnson Report "contains the supporting technical analysis and documents precisely how the draft LUCE Update complies with the State Aeronautics Act, as set forth in Division 9 (Aviation) of the Public Utilities Code (PUC)." The ALUC previously reviewed a copy of the Draft Johnson Report (dated November 22, 2013) and prepared a response entitled Review and Analysis of the Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Report (ALUC Report).3 The ALUC Report is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated 3 The final Johnson Report dated August 11, 2014 does not contain any significant revisions (as compared to the draft Johnson Report dated November 22, 2013). Page 7 of 65 herein by this reference. By way of summary, the ALUC Report identifies the following deficiencies in the noise and safety analysis contained in the Johnson Report:4 (a) Noise Analysis Deficiencies (i) The Johnson Report misrepresents the 65 dB CNEL contour as a "standard" for airport compatibility planning, whereas the Handbook indicates that "[flor quieter settings and many —if not most — airports in California, 65 db CNEL is too high of a noise level to be appropriate as a standard for land use compatibility planning." (ii) The Johnson Report incorrectly characterizes the airport environment as "urbanized." In reality, all existing development within the Airport Planning Area is either "suburban" or "rural" by the standards contained within the Handbook. (iii) The Johnson Report fails to normalize sound exposure criteria for SBP. Normalization is strongly recommended by the Handbook. (iv) Adoption of the 65 dB CNEL contour, as advocated by the Johnson Report, would result in single -event noise impacts that greatly exceed the local community's sensitivity to intrusive sound, as expressed in the recently adopted City Noise Ordinance. (v) The Johnson Report inappropriately characterizes, minimizes and dismisses the record of citizen complaints regarding airport noise analysis. (vi) The airport activity forecasts utilized in the Johnson Report are insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the SAA or to provide a basis for effective airport compatibility planning. (vii) The CNEL contours presented in the Johnson Report do not appear to have been constructed independently by a firm with special expertise in noise analysis. They, therefore, lack credibility for land use planning purposes. (c) Safety Analysis Deficiencies (i) The Johnson Report misrepresents the generic safety zones depicted in the Handbook as "standards." The Handbook explicitly indicates that these generic zones are merely starting points which may be considered by ALUCs in formulating ALUPs. In 4 The ALUC Report also addresses inconsistencies between the Johnson Report and prior aviation noise and safety analyses performed by Johnson Aviation as well as deficiencies related to public process. Page 8 of 65 an ALUP Update Subcommittee survey of 148 ALUPs from across California, it was found that 93.5% do not utilize the generic Handbook zones. (ii) The Johnson Report fails to adequately analyze or address the specific, local topographic, meteorologic and operational factors which impact aviation safety at SBP. 23. Based on the foregoing, any and all of the Findings that rely on information and documentation contained within the Johnson Report and deemed deficient in the ALUC Report do not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and are, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. ii. Findings Based on Consistency with the Handbook 23.5 Of the forty two (42) Findings, twenty four (24) cite consistency with the Handbook as proof that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the purposes of the SAA. As discussed in Paragraph 22 and Exhibit B and in correspondence from Caltrans dated September 12, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by this reference, the Johnson Report is not consistent with the Handbook. Moreover, even assuming such consistency with the Handbook arguendo, findings that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the Handbook are not, and are not synonymous with, the findings required by PUC Section 21676(b). Rather, PUC Section 21676(b) requires that the City adopt findings that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the purposes set forth in PUC Section 21670. As discussed in Paragraph 17 supra, the purposes set forth in Section 21670 mandate that the City adopt findings that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates do not permit any noise and safety hazards not permitted under the AL UP. 24. Based on the foregoing, any and all of the Findings that simply cite to consistency with the Handbook do not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and are, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. 25. The language contained within PUC Section 21674.7 supports the above characterization and role of the Handbook. Subsection (a) provides that an AL UC that formulates, adopts or amends an ALUP shall be guided by information contained within the Handbook. In addition and more telling subsection (b) provides as follows: It is the intent of the Legislature to discourage incompatible land uses near existing airports. Therefore, prior to granting permits for the renovation or remodeling of an existing building, structure, or facility, and before the construction of a new building, it is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies be guided by the height, use; noise, safety, and density criteria that are Page 9 of 65 compatible with airport operations, as established by this article, and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook [ ... ] to the extent that the criteria has been incorporated into the plan prepared by a commission pursuant to Section 21675 (emphasis added). Although the City often cites to subsection (b) to support its reliance on the Handbook, it always omits the last and vital clause. In addition, the Handbook itself provides as follows: This Handbook applies to ALUCs established under the SAA, who are charged with providing for compatible land use planning in the vicinity of each existing and new public use airport within their jurisdiction (see Handbook, page vii) (emphasis added). Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the purpose of the Handbook is to guide ALM in the adoption of ALUPs and to guide Cities only to the extent that the provisions of the Handbook have been incorporated into the AL UP by the ALUC. 26. The fact that the City repeatedly refers in its Findings to the Handbook as the standard for its compliance with the SAA evidences its intent to substitute land use provisions contained with the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates for the provisions contained within the ALUP, thereby creating its own airport land use. compatibility plan, as discussed in Paragraph 11 supra. 27. As described in Paragraph 2 supra, the SAA calls for the creation of a single - purpose (or standalone) ALUC comprised of seven (7) members within each county having an airport operated for the benefit of the general public with limited exception (see PUC Section 21670(b)). The County does not fall within any of the limited exceptions, and the ALUC was created consistent with the requirements of the SAA. It should be noted that although neither of the alternatives set forth in the SAA are applicable to the County, the alternative commonly known as the "designated body" alternative (PUC Section 21670.1(a)) requires at least two (2) members of the alternate body to have aviation expertise and the alternative commonly known as the "designated agency" alternative (PUC Section 21670.1(c)) requires that Caltrans determine that the agency's review process is consistent with the SAA. The City Council has not been designated as the body to carry out land use planning within the County and no evidence has been provided indicating that it or its proposed processes meet the requirements placed on the alternatives set forth in the PUC. iii. Findings Related to Safety Impacts Page 10 of 65 28. As discussed in more detail infra, none of the Findings related to safety include a finding that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates do not expose persons living and working in areas adjacent to SBP to greater aviation safety risks than exist under the current ALUP. 29. Moreover, such a finding cannot be made as the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates allow dense residential development within a few hundred yards of the SBP perimeter which is not permitted under the current ALUP. Aircraft overlying these homes will be at low altitude, with little opportunity to recover or to avoid developed residential areas on the ground in the event of an emergency., Pilots operating these craft will be engaged in relatively high - demand activities associated with landing or take -off, a situation that will be greatly aggravated during inclement weather. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, the SAA acknowledges that adequate evaluation of aviation safety risks can only be carried out by a body, such as the ALUC, whose members have expertise in the field of aeronautics. Reliance on the advice of a single consultant does not provide adequate assurance that public safety will be protected. 30. Based on the foregoing, any and all of the Findings assessing the safety impacts of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update do not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and are, therefore, inadequate to support -the overrule. iv. Findings Related to Noise Impacts 31. As discussed in more detail infra, none of the Findings related to noise include a finding that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates do not expose persons living and working in areas adjacent to SBP to greater aviation noise impacts than exist under the current ALUP. 32. Moreover, such a finding cannot be made based on a comparison of the noise policies contained within the ALUP and the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates as discussed in Paragraph 67 infra. 33. Neither the Johnson Report nor the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates discuss or document current evidence related to the adverse health and social impacts of airport noise, including evidence indicating that the proposed 60 dB CNEL contour is insufficient to adequately protect the public from excessive noise impacts. Prolonged exposure to elevated noise levels has been shown to be associated with a number of health effects, including hearing impairment, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, annoyance, sleep disturbance, decreased school performance, stress, increased incidence of workplace accidents and anti - social behaviors (e.g. aggression). A recent study of residents living near the Heathrow Airport in London demonstrates that exposure to an airport noise level of as low as 63 dB Ldn is associated with a significant increase in the rate of hospitalization for cardio events (see Hansell, AL. BMJ Page 11 of 65 2013:6432 doi: 10.1136/bmj.8432).5 In another study of over one million (1,000,000) people living near the airport in Cologne, Germany, a daytime exposure to airport noise levels of 60 dB increased the incidence of coronary heart diseases by sixty one percent (61 %) in men and by eighty percent (80 %) among women (see T6dlicher Larm. Spiegel, 51:45 14 December 2009 (German)). 34. Analysis of noise complaints received by SBP between January of 2009 and March of 2013 reveals that virtually all noise complaints were from locations outside of the 60 dB CNEL contour set forth in the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates. This suggests that, for many residents of the community, the proposed 60 db CNEL contour is not sufficient to adequately protect the public from excessive noise impacts. 35. Based on the foregoing, any and all of the Findings assessing the noise impacts of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update do not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and are, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. v. Findings Attacking the Validity of the Current ALUP 36. During each revision of the ALUP, the ALUC has consulted extensively with the City and County and has provided extraordinary opportunities for public comment. The ALUP, in its current form, has been in force for nine (9) years. The ALUC vigorously rejects the contention made throughout the Findings that the ALUP is inadequate in form or in content and notes that a review of the current ALUP by Caltrans found that the ALUP is in full compliance with all requirements of the SAA and with the recommendations contained within the Handbook. 37. Based on the foregoing, any and all of the Findings that are based on assertions that the current ALUP is deficient are gratuitous and inadequate to support the overrule, because they do not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Section 21676(b) and 21670. vi. Findings Containing Demonstrable Errors of Fact 38. As discussed in more detail infra, a number of the Findings contain demonstrable errors of fact and /or merely state a conclusion without identifying the factual evidence or chain of reasoning leading to the stated conclusion. 39. Based upon the legal requirements for an adequate finding set forth in Paragraph 18 supra, all such findings do not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and are, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. 5 Ldn is a weighted measure of 24 -hour noise exposure, similar but not identical to CNEL. Page 12 of 65 B. Finding Specific Comments i. Finding 1 40. Finding 1 provides as follows: The policies and programs of the draft LUCE Update, including the provisions of the Airport Overlay Zoning regulations, are based upon the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Update, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), and Airport Land Use Compatibility Report (Compatibility Report) prepared by Johnson Aviation dated August 11, 2014. The Compatibility Report, which contains the supporting technical analysis and documents precisely how the draft LUCE Update complies with the State Aeronautics Act (SAA), as set forth in Division 9 (Aviation) of the Public Utilities Code (PUC), and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook), is incorporated herein by reference. 41. Analysis of Finding 1: (a) The assertion that the "policies and programs of the draft LUCE update [...] are based upon the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Update and Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)" is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the proposal to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency conforms to the requirements of PUC Section 21670. (b) The assertion that the "policies and programs of the draft LUCE update [...] are based upon the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report (Compatibility Report) prepared by Johnson Aviation dated August 11, 2014" is insufficient to support the proposal to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency because: (i) The Johnson Report does not include any evidence that the policies set forth therein (and reflected in the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates) will result in no new noise and safety impacts as compared to the AL UP. (ii) As discussed in Paragraph 22 supra and set forth in Exhibit D, analysis of the Johnson Report by the ALUC revealed numerous omissions and deficiencies with regard to application of the standards for airport land use planning contained in the Handbook. record. (c) Finding 1 is conclusory and not supported by substantial evidence in the Page 13 of 65 (d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 1 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. ii. Finding 2 42. Finding 2 provides as follows: As evidenced by the Compatibility [Johnson] Report, the Airport- related policies and programs contained in the Draft Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) and implementing Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) zoning regulations provide adequate measures to "protect public health, safety and welfare" and "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards" near the Airport "to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670(a)(2). 43. Analysis of Finding 2: (a) Finding 2 significantly misrepresents the requirements of PUC Section 21670(a)(2). The actual wording of the statute first requires "the orderly expansion of airports" (emphasis added). In stark contrast to this requirement, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates contain no provisions to ensure the orderly expansion of SBP. On the contrary, the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) provisions of the Zoning Ordinance Update appear to be based on a policy of minimizing the future potential for expansion of services and operations. (b) The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would permit the establishment of residential and other highly airport- incompatible land uses at sites that are subject to significant airport noise and safety impacts and which are currently devoted to agriculture, open space or other airport- compatible uses. In comparison with the ALUP, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would result in additional persons being exposed to airport- related noise and safety hazards. This is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the SAA to minimize such exposure. (c) The Johnson Report is insufficient to support the proposal to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency for the reasons set forth in Paragraphs 22 -23 and 41 supra. record. (d) Finding 2 is conclusory and not supported by substantial evidence in the Page 14 of 65 (e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 2 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. iii. Finding 3 44. Finding 3 provides as follows: Historically, the City deferred to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and County- adopted Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for airport land use compatibility determinations. In recent years, however, errors and omissions within the ALUP have become apparent. The City now considers the ALUP to be flawed and outdated, with policies that are not based on facts. The ALUP does not comply with the public health and safety requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. 45. Analysis of Finding 3: (a) The City has no authority to evaluate the adequacy of the ALUP. This authority is reserved to Caltrans (see PUC Section 21675(d)). (b) The current ALUP was developed and adopted with the full participation of the City. During the formulation of the ALUP, the ALUC met on numerous occasions with representatives of the CDD and the draft ALUP was available for public review for over one (1) year prior to its adoption. Through this process, the City was afforded ample opportunity to identify any "errors," "omissions," "flaws," or "policies that are not based on facts." Having failed to provide comment or criticism at the appropriate time, principles of equity bar the City from challenging or wholly disregarding the adopted ALUP. (c) At the specific request of the ALUC, Caltrans has reviewed and analyzed the current ALUP for SBP and has found it to be in full compliance with the SAA and the current version of the Handbook. In contrast to the City, Caltrans did not find the ALUP to contain "errors and omissions" nor to be "flawed and outdated, with policies that are not based on facts." (d) The criticisms leveled at the current ALUP by Finding 3 do not speak to the purposes of the SAA nor do they demonstrate that the draft proposed LUCE will be as effective as the ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to airport noise and safety hazards. Finding 3, therefore, is not relevant to the proposed overrule of the ALUC's determination of inconsistency. record. (e) Finding 3 is conclusory and not supported by substantial evidence in the Page 15 of 65 (f) Based on the foregoing, Finding 3 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. iv. Finding 4 46. Finding 4 provides as follows: The "Airport Planning Area" defined within the Existing ALUP is identical to the planning area identified in the ALUP as originally adopted in 1977. In 37 years, the safety zones in this Existing ALUP have not been updated. 47. Analysis of Finding 4: (a) Although the outer boundary of the Airport Planning Area (in the current ALUP) is identical to the Airport Planning Area established in 1977, the shape and size of the safety zones in the existing ALUP are very different from those defined in the 1977 ALUP and are wholly consistent with the current Caltrans' recommendations. In sum, the assertion that "In 37 years, the safety zones in the Existing ALUP have not been updated" is false. (b) As above, the criticisms leveled at the current ALUP in Finding 4 do not speak to the purposes of the SAA nor do they demonstrate that LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will be as effective as the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to airport noise and safety hazards. Finding 4, therefore, is not relevant to the proposed overrule of the ALUC's determination of inconsistency. (c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 4 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. V. Finding 5 48. Finding 5 provides as follows: Safety zones designated in the existing ALUP are not accurately aligned with the San Luis Obispo Airport runways and they do not reflect runway length changes constructed in recent years and depicted on the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). 49. Analysis of Finding 5: Page 16 of 65 (a) The alignment of safety zones with runway headings depicted by the analog maps within the existing ALUP is as precise as was possible, given the technology available at the time of ALUP adoption and the resources available to the ALUC. (b) During the past eighteen (18) months, the ALUC has provided the City with extremely precise, GIS- compatible descriptions of the safety zones at SBP incorporating all current and future anticipated changes in runway lengths, positions, and alignments. (c) As above, the criticisms leveled at the current ALUP in Finding 5 do not speak to the purposes of the SAA nor do they demonstrate that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will be as effective as the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to airport noise and safety hazards. Finding 5, therefore, is not relevant to the proposed overrule of the ALUC's determination of inconsistency. (d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 5 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. vi. Finding 6 50. Finding 6 provides as follows: State law requires that ALUPs be consistent with the Airport Master Plan (AMP), the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and the FAA- approved Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). The existing ALUP is not consistent with the AMP, the ALP or the TAF. 51. Analysis of Finding 6: (a) Finding 6 misstates the actual requirements of state law. The relevant statutory provisions are PUC Sections 21647.7(a) and 21675(a) which provide as follows, respectively: (i) An airport land use commission that formulates, adopts, or amends an airport land use compatibility plan shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (emphasis added). (ii) Each commission shall formulate an airport land use compatibility plan that will provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the general welfare of the Page 17 of 65 inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The commission's airport land use compatibility plan shall include and shall be based on a long -range master plan or an airport layoutplan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years (emphasis added). Thus, under state law, an airport land use plan must "be guided by" the principles and provisions put forth in the Handbook and must be based upon "the anticipated growth of the airport over at least the next 20 years," as predicted by the approved Airport Master Plan. State law, however, does not require that an airport land use plan be consistent with the "FAA- approved Terminal Area Forecast (TAF)." On the contrary, in cases where the TAF is at variance with the activity forecasts of the approved Airport Master Plan, state law mandates that ALUCs utilize the Airport Master Plan forecast for land use planning purposes. (b) As discussed in Paragraph 45 supra, Caltrans has performed a special review of the ALUP. In contrast to the unsupported assertions contained in Finding 6, Caltrans has determined that the current ALUP is fully compliant with all requirements and provisions of state law. (c) As above, the criticisms leveled at the current ALUP in Finding 6 do not speak to the purposes of the SAA nor do they demonstrate that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will be as effective as the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to airport noise and safety hazards. Finding 6, therefore, is not relevant to the proposed overrule of the ALUC's determination of inconsistency. (d) Finding 6 is conclusory and fails to provide substantial evidence to support the contention that "the existing ALUP is not consistent with the AMP, the ALP or the TAF." (e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 6 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. vii. Finding 7 52. Finding 7 provides as follows: ALUCs are not empowered to determine what the future airfield configuration, airport role, or activity levels will be. State statutes direct that an ALUCP must be based upon an Airport Master Plan and FAA - approved Terminal Area Forecast. Page 18 of 65 53. Analysis of Finding 7: (a) The ALUP contains no provisions that would regulate airfield configuration, "airport role," or future airport activity levels. (b) Finding 7 is conclusory and provides no factual basis to support the contention that the ALUC has, in any way, attempted to regulate airfield configuration, "airport role," or future airport activity levels. (c) As discussed in Paragraph 51 supra, the statement that "an ALUCP must be based upon [ ... ] the FAA - approved Terminal Area Forecast" is false and misleading. (d) As above, the criticisms leveled at the current ALUP in Finding 7 do not speak to the purposes of the SAA nor do they demonstrate that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will be as effective as the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to airport noise and safety hazards. Finding 7, therefore, is not relevant to the proposed overrule of the ALUC's determination of inconsistency. (e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 7 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. viii. Finding 8 54. Finding 8 provides as follows: While planners are not mandated to use the sample zones provided in the Handbook, they are mandated to create zones that have easily definable geometric shapes, are as compact as possible, have a distinct progression in the degree of risk represented, and are limited to a realistic number (five or six should be adequate in most cases). The ALUP's safety zones require complex trigonometry to define, show an increasing geographic area of risk at further distances from the airport, and contain zones that are not described by the Handbook and that are not reflective of Handbook Table 3A adjustment factors. 55. Analysis of Finding 8: (a) Finding 8 misstates the actual requirements of state law. The SAA makes no reference to the creation of "zones;" and the Handbook operates merely as a guidance document for ALUCs (see PUC Section 21674.7). (b) With the exception of the outer border of the Airport Planning Area (Safety Area S -2), the Aviation Safety Zones defined by the current ALUP consist of three (3) easily - definable geometric shapes — rectangles, triangles, and segments of circles. The irregular Page 19 of 65 outer border of Safety Area S -2 represents a vestige of the ALUP adopted in 1977. The ALUP is in the process of formulating an amendment to the ALUP that will modify the outer border of Safety Area S -2 to an oval shape. (c) As suggested by the Handbook, the number of safety zones defined by the ALUP is "limited to a realistic number" — in this case, five (5). (d) While the Handbook does suggest that airport safety zones be "as compact as possible," this does not imply that safety zones should become smaller in geographic area at further distances from the airport. The fallacy of this argument is illustrated by simple consideration of the generic "sample" safety zones included in the Handbook itself. In this example, the Inner Turning Zone becomes progressively larger at greater distances from the airport. In addition, the Handbook's geographically largest generic zone is the "Traffic Pattern" zone, which is also the most distant from the airport. (e) The Handbook provides that ALUCs should not simply adopt the sample generic safety zones contained therein for use at a specific airport. Rather, ALUCs should adjust the shape and dimensions of airport safety zones based upon the operational characteristics of an individual airport. Some of the factors to be considered are listed in Table 3A of the Handbook. Over the past two (2) years, the ALUC has had extensive discussions with Caltrans on the manner in which generic safety zones have, in the current ALUP, been adjusted in response to local factors. These discussions have confirmed the following: (i) The local adjustment factors to be considered for a specific airport include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 3A and (ii) The manner in which the current ALUP has adapted the generic safety zones to operational factors specific to SBP is both rational and appropriate and consistent with state law and the Handbook. (f) The statement that "the ALUP's safety zones require complex trigonometry to define" is untrue. The ALUC has provided the City with precise measurements and reference points for all airport safety zones (with the exception of Safety Area S -2) that allow for extremely accurate, GIS- compatible location of zone boundaries with no calculations. The trigonometric calculations referred to in this Finding were provided to the City merely as an aid to help the City understand how the size and shape of the Safety Zones relate to the operational characteristics of the airport environment. (g) The criticisms leveled at the current ALUP in Finding 8 do not speak to the purposes of the SAA nor do they demonstrate that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will be as effective as the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to airport noise and safety hazards. Finding 8, therefore, is not relevant to the proposed overrule of the ALUC's determination of inconsistency. Page 20 of 65 (h) Based on the foregoing, Finding 8 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. ix. Finding 9 56. Finding 9 provides as follows: Since January 2012, the City of San Luis Obispo has encouraged the ALUC to update the ALUP for consistency with the SAA, PUC and Handbook in an open and collaborative manner based on factual information and realistic airport operations scenarios. Such an update has not occurred. 57. Analysis of Finding 9: (a) As discussed in Paragraph 7 supra, despite severe budgetary constraints, the ALUC has been working for almost two (2) years to prepare and adopt an amendment to the current ALUP. However, because the ALUC and ALUC staff have had to expend a great deal of time and resources responding to assertions made by the City in the Johnson Report and related correspondence and because the City changed its position regarding funding for the noise contours to be included within the ALUP update, the ALUC has not been able to complete the amendment. (b) Other than with respect to the prematurity of the City's referral, the issue of the pending ALUP amendment is irrelevant to the ALUC's determination that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are inconsistent with the ALUP. The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates have been determined to be inconsistent with the current ALUP, a document that has been reviewed by Caltrans and has been found to be fully compliant with the SAA and the Handbook. (c) The criticisms leveled at the current ALUP in Finding 9 do not speak to the purposes of the SAA nor do they demonstrate that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will be as effective as the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to airport noise and safety hazards. Finding 9, therefore, is not relevant to the proposed overrule of the ALUC's determination of inconsistency. (d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 9 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. x. Finding 10 58. Finding 10 provides as follows: Page 21 of 65 The policies and programs set forth in the proposed LUCE Update and implementing Airport Overlay Zone are based upon the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and are consistent with the guidelines recommended by Caltrans to specifically fulfill the purposes of Article 3.5 of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. 59. Analysis of Finding 10: (a) As discussed in Paragraph 41 supra and more specifically set forth in Exhibit D, the policies and programs contained within the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are not consistent with the Handbook. The provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update relating to airport compatibility are based on the Johnson Report which contains a number of uncorrected deficiencies. (b) As discussed in Paragraphs 23 -25 supra, even if the proposed City policies and programs were in conformance with the Handbook, this would be insufficient to confirm that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the purposes of the SAA. (c) As discussed in Paragraphs 29 and 32 supra, in comparison with the current ALUP, the land use provisions of LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update would actually increase the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas in the vicinity of SBP. (d) Finding 10 contains no factual evidence to support the contention that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the Handbook. (e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 10 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xii. Finding 11 60. Finding 11 provides as follows: The City went through an extensive effort to ensure that the City's LUCE policies: (1) are consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, as stated in Section 21670; (2) are consistent with the Caltrans Handbook's policies and recommendations relating to safety, overflight, airspace protection and noise; and (3) that the LUCE policies do not adversely impact the public health, welfare and safety or airport operations. All of the policies in the LUCE are based on substantial evidence provided in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report included as a technical appendix to the LUCE Update EIR and incorporated by reference. This report includes a careful examination of the existing and proposed airport facilities, operations, and local procedures, weather, topography, aircraft Page 22 of 65 accidents and incidents. The report also includes a careful examination of the County approved Airport Master Plan, FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan and application of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 obstruction analysis. The report also includes recommendations for LUCE policies consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and guidelines provided in the Caltrans Handbook. Therefore, the LUCE policies and programs and associated implementation through creation of an Airport Overlay Zone is based on substantial evidence and is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670, to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards and do not impact public health, welfare and safety or existing and future airport operations. 61. Analysis of Finding 11: (a) Finding 11 is, in large part, merely an extended restatement of Finding 10 and suffers the same defects: (i) As discussed in Paragraph 41 supra and more specifically set forth in Exhibit D, the policies and programs contained within the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are not consistent with the Handbook. (ii) In comparison with the current ALUP, the land use provisions of LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would actually increase the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas in the vicinity of the SBP. (b) As discussed in Paragraph 26 supra, the reference in Finding 11 and in numerous other Findings to consistency with the Handbook provides substantial additional evidence of the City's intent to author its own airport land use compatibility plan in contravention of the SAA. As discussed in Paragraphs 25 supra, the Handbook is a reference document for AL UCs that has no applicability to the formulation or adoption of a legitimate general plan unless the provisions of the Handbook have been included in the AL UP adopted by the AL UC. (c) As discussed in Paragraph 12 supra, the City has been notified by Caltrans that the City is not authorized to formulate or adopt an airport land use compatibility plan, and that such authority has been reserved, by state law, to airport land use commissions. (d) As discussed in Paragraph 27 supra, the City has not demonstrated that the membership of its City Council includes two (2) members with aeronautical expertise or that the airport provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates have been approved by Caltrans, requirements placed on "designated body" counties and "designated agency" counties, respectively. Page 23 of 65 (e) Assertions that "the City's LUCE policies: (1) are consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, as stated in Section 21670: (2) are consistent with the Caltrans Handbook's policies and recommendations relating to safety, overflight, airspace protection and noise; and (3) that the LUCE policies do not adversely impact the public health, welfare and safety or airport operations" are conclusory and are not supported by factual evidence. (f) As discussed in Paragraphs 23 -25 supra, even if the proposed City policies and programs were in conformance with the Handbook, this would be insufficient to confirm that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the purposes of the SAA. (g) The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates, rather than serving to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards, would actually increase the allowable extent of exposure to a level greater than is currently the case under the provisions of the ALUP. (h) Based on the foregoing, Finding 11 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xii. Finding 12 62. Finding 12 provides as follows: The draft LUCE Update and implementing Airport Overlay Zoning regulations incorporate and are fully consistent with the current Caltrans Handbook standards for addressing safety, noise, overflight and airspace protection and also include accurate Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping, current FAA operations and planning standards and significant airport planning information from the County- adopted Airport Master Plan and FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan. The City has also developed complete technical airport operational information through its Airport Land Use Compatibility Report fully considering FAA - regulated and approved operations and procedures. San Luis Obispo Regional Airport supports all- weather General Aviation operations and scheduled commercial passenger service with no deviations due to topography or weather that limit these operations or require adjustments to Caltrans Handbook safety zones. The City applied the Caltrans Handbook density and intensity of use standards to each proposed Airport Overlay Zone to ensure safety and compatibility of existing and proposed land uses and to prevent future development of incompatible land uses. 63. Analysis of Finding 12: specifically: (a) Finding 12 has the same deficiencies as Findings 10 and 11 noted above, Page 24 of 65 (i) As discussed in Paragraph 41 supra and more specifically set forth in Exhibit D, the policies and programs set forth in the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are not consistent with the Handbook. The provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates relating to airport compatibility are based on the Johnson Report which contains a number of uncorrected deficiencies. (ii) In comparison with the current ALUP, the land use provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would actually increase the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas in the vicinity of the SBP. (iii) As discussed in Paragraph 11 supra, the Airport Area Chapter (Chapter 7) of the LUCE Update and the Airport Overlay Zone Chapter (Chapter 17.57) of the Zoning Ordinance Update constitute a de facto airport land use compatibility plan in contravention of the SAA. (iv) As discussed in Paragraph 27 supra, the City has not demonstrated that the membership of its City Council includes two (2) members with aeronautical expertise or that the airport provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates have been approved by Caltrans, requirements placed on "designated body" counties and "designated agency" counties, respectively. (b) The adoption of the generic safety zones set forth in the Handbook for land use compatibility planning in the vicinity of SBP is inappropriate and inconsistent with the Handbook. Significant local factors that must be incorporated into the determination of the optimal size and configuration of airport safety zones include, at a minimum: runways (i) Instrument procedures (approaches and departures) not aligned with • VOR -A approach • WYNRR departure • AVILA departure • Circle -to -land procedures (ii) High terrain in the vicinity of the airport • non - standard glideslope for Runway 29 • Islay Hill • Terrace Hill (iii) Noise - sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the airport • adopted "Quiet Flight" procedures for SBP • Los Ranchos School Page 25 of 65 (iv) Runway use by special purpose aircraft • helicopter operations and helicopter training procedures • student pilots (c) The assertion that "[t]he draft LUCE Update and implementing Airport Overlay Zoning regulations incorporate and are fully consistent with the current Caltrans Handbook standards for addressing safety, noise, overflight and airspace protection" is conclusory and not supported by fact. (d) In comparison with the current ALUP, the land use provisions of LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update would actually increase the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas in the vicinity of the SBP (e) As discussed in Paragraphs 23 -25 supra, even if the proposed City policies and programs were in conformance with the Handbook, this would be insufficient to confirm that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the purposes of the SAA. (f) Based on the foregoing, Finding 12 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xiii. Finding 13 64. Finding 13 provides as follows: Airport Safety policies and programs contained in the LUCE Update are consistent with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines (See Handbook, Chapter 3, Page 3 -15 through 3 -27; Chapter 4, Pages 4 -17 through 4- 34) and substantiated by the FAA- approved San Luis Obispo County Airport Master Plan activity forecasts because policies and programs address development standards to regulate development intensity, density, and prohibited uses; infill development standards, height limitations and other hazards to flight; noise, buyer awareness measures, avigation easements; airspace obstruction; open land; non - conforming uses and reconstruction; and City review. These policies and programs meet the guidance and direction provided in sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines. The FAA - approved Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity is the best reasonably foreseeable projection of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for long- term safety planning purposes (See Handbook, Pages 3 -7 through 3 -8). Public Utility Code §21675(a) requires land use compatibility plans to be based on the Airport Master Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. 65. Analysis of Finding 13: Page 26 of 65 (a) The policies and programs of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are not based upon the aviation activity forecast incorporated into the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Master Plan, but upon a modified forecast developed solely by Johnson Aviation. (b) The modification of the Airport Master Plan activity forecast devised by Johnson Aviation has not been approved by the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, the ALUC, the FAA, or Caltrans. (c) Finding 13 contains no factual evidence to support the contention that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update policies and programs that "address development standards to regulate development intensity, density, and prohibited uses; infill development standards, height limitations and other hazards to flight; noise, buyer awareness measures, avigation easements; airspace obstruction; open land; non - conforming uses and reconstruction; and City review" do so in a manner consistent with the cited sections of the Handbook. Thus, Finding 13 is conclusory and not supported by fact. (d) As discussed in Paragraph 27, the City has not demonstrated that the membership of its City Council includes two (2) members with aeronautical expertise or that the airport provisions of the 'LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates have been approved by Caltrans, requirements placed on "designated body" counties and "designated agency" counties, respectively. (e) In comparison with the current ALUP, the land use provisions of LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update would actually increase the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas in the vicinity of the SBP (f) As discussed in Paragraphs 23 -25 supra, even if the proposed City policies and programs were in conformance with the Handbook, this would be insufficient to confirm that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the purposes of the SAA. (g) Based on the foregoing, Finding 13 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xiv. Finding 14 66. Finding 14 provides as follows: The City's LUCE is consistent with the overall goal of the State Aeronautics Act to minimize incompatible land uses within the vicinity of the Airport. The LUCE does not adversely impact public health, welfare and safety or airport operations because it includes measures to reduce or eliminate any potentially significant noise or safety impacts, as documented in the Compatibility Report and LUCE Draft Environmental Page 27 of 65 Impact Report (EIR) through the implementation of a combination of LUCE policies and the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ). The Caltrans Handbook goes further to delineate the characteristics of "ideal" safety zones such as "easily definable geometric shapes," a limited number of five or six zones, a distinct progression in the degree of safety risk further from the runway and "each zone should be as compact as possible." The City's proposed LUCE is intended to accomplish this ideal by incorporating those guidelines. Furthermore, the ALUP noise contours are inconsistent with the verified and validated noise contours from the County- approved Airport Master Plan EIR using the FAA's latest version of the Integrated Noise Model (INM). 67. Analysis of Finding 14: (a) The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates fail to minimize the public's exposure to airport- related noise as required by PUC Section 21670, because they would permit noise - sensitive development in areas adjacent to the airport where such development does not already exist and where such noise - sensitive land uses are prohibited by the current ALUP. Specifically, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would allow for the establishment of new extremely noise - sensitive land uses between the 55 and 60 dB CNEL noise contours, while the current ALUP restricts such new development to the area outside of the 55 dB CNEL contour. Rather than acting to minimize the public's exposure to airport- related noise, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would actually increase such exposure, because the "combination of LUCE policies and the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)" are less protective of the public than the provisions of the current ALUP. (b) The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates fail to minimize the public's exposure to airport- related safety hazards, because they would permit residential and other inappropriate development in areas subject to frequent and low- altitude overflight at densities that are greater than allowable under the current ALUP. Specifically, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would allow for greater density of development and a wider range of development types (including residential land uses) than the current ALUP in areas that are within the glide radius that could be achieved by an aircraft approaching or departing from SBP in the event that such aircraft was disabled by an engine failure or other in flight emergency. Rather than acting to minimize the public's exposure to airport- related safety hazards, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would actually increase such exposure, because the "combination of LUCE policies and the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)" are less protective of the public than the provisions of the current ALUP. (c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 14 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xv. Finding 15 Page 28 of 65 68. Finding 15 provides as follows: Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670(a)(b), the Policies and Programs contained in the Draft LUCE Update ensure the orderly expansion of the airport and include land use controls that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the airport to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. 69. Analysis of Finding 15: (a) Finding 15 is conclusory and not supported by substantial evidence. (b) As noted in the Paragraph 67 supra, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates fail to minimize the public's exposure to airport- related noise, because they would permit noise - sensitive development in areas adjacent to the airport where such development does not already exist and where noise - sensitive land uses are prohibited by the current ALUP. (c) As also noted in Paragraph 67, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates fail to minimize the public's exposure to airport- related safety hazards, because they would permit (as compared to the current ALUP) an increase in the allowable densities and types of development in areas subject to aviation hazards due to frequent and low- altitude overflight. (d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 15 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xvi. Finding 16 70. Finding 16 provides as follows: The Draft LUCE update and implementing Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ), provide for a progression of land use density and intensity based on the degree of reduced noise and safety risk with distance away from the runways, consistent with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines. The FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) dated November 4, 2010 depicts the ultimate planned development of SBP facilities, including runways and associated Runway Protection Zones. The Draft LUCE update and associated implementation regulations apply noise restrictions based on the FAA - approved Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity based upon a 20 year planning horizon. The FAA - approved Master Plan forecast is the best reasonably foreseeable projection of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for long -term noise planning purposes. 71. Analysis of Finding 16: Page 29 of 65 (a) Even assuming arguendo that "the Draft LUCE update and implementing Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ), provide for a progression of land use density and intensity based on the degree of reduced noise and safety risk with distance away from the runways, consistent with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines," this is not determinative with respective to the question of whether the proposed LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the stated purpose of the SAA to minimize the public's exposure to airport noise and safety hazards as discussed in Paragraphs 23 -25 supra. (b) The current Airport Master Plan includes a forecast of aviation activity at SBP that extends only through the year 2023 (i.e. nine (9) years into the future). If, as stated in Finding 16, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates include noise restrictions based on this forecast, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates do not satisfy the requirements of PUC Section 21675(a) which states in pertinent part that "The [...] airport land use compatibility plan 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 anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years" (emphasis added). (c) If the noise restrictions contained within the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are based upon some extension or modification of the 2003 -to -2023 aviation activity forecast contained in the Airport Master Plan, the methodology employed in generating such an extension or modification has not been approved or validated by the ALUC, Caltrans or the FAA. (d) With respect to noise exposure, the Johnson Report and the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates ignore the following provisions of the Handbook which suggest that a twenty (20) year planning horizon is insufficient: For compatibility planning, however, 20 years may be shortsighted. For most airports, a lifespan of more than 20 years can reasonably be presumed. Moreover, the need to avoid incompatible land use development will exist for as long as an airport exists. Once development occurs near an airport, it is virtually impossible —or, at the very least, costly and time consuming to modify the land uses to ones that are more compatible with airport activities (see Handbook, page 3 -5). The "at least" phrase in the statute warrants emphasis. The 20 -year time frame should be considered a minimum for compatibility plans. Noise impacts (as well as other compatibility concerns) should be viewed from the longest practical time perspective (see Handbook, page 3 -6). In conducting noise analyses for ALUCPs, the long -range time frame is almost always of greatest significance (see Handbook, page 3 -6). Page 30 of 65 (e) There is no indication that the noise contours included in the Johnson Report were constructed by a firm or individual with recognized expertise in noise modeling. (f) Finding 16 fails to address whether the City's proposed action to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency is consistent with the purposes of the SAA to minimize the public's exposure to airport noise and safety hazards. (g) Based on the foregoing, Finding 16 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xvii. Finding 17 72. Finding 17 provides as follows: Policies and programs contained in the City's LUCE Update and implementing zoning regulations do not replace or usurp the ALUC's authority because the LUCE policies and programs only apply within the city limits. In addition, all future projects involving a legislative act, such as a general plan amendment, specific plan or zone change, would be referred to the ALUC for an ALUP consistency determination as reflected in the implementing Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.030(C). 73. Analysis of Finding 17: (a) Under the provisions of state law, the powers, duties and responsibilities of the ALUC extend to all of the area encompassed by the ALUP irrespective of local agency jurisdiction. The fact that the policies and programs contained in the City's LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates seek to replace and usurp the ALUC's authority in only a portion of the established airport land use planning area in no way diminishes the gravity of such usurpation. (b) As discussed in Paragraph 12 supra, Caltrans has provided the following comments concerning the appropriateness and legality of the airport land use compatibility policies and programs contained with the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates: Even if the time and expense of an overrule is pursued by the City, the proposed airport programs and policies in the LUCE are so comprehensive that they have the net effect of amending the ALUCP and its policies, circumventing the ALUC's project review process, and nearly establishing a separate airport land use commission that would replace the County's. State law does not support such a wholesale transfer of airport land use compatibility planning to any other entity. State law specifically authorizes the establishment ofALUCs in a manner consistent with the law, and authorizes only them to formulate and adopt ALUCPs (italics added). Page 31 of 65 (c) Based on the analysis provided by Caltrans, it can be concluded that Caltrans considers the airport land use compatibility policies and programs contained with the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates to be a usurpation of the office and authority of the established ALUC. Under the provisions of the California Government Code, such usurpation may be cause for referral to and action by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California. (d) Finding 17 does not address whether the City's proposed action to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency is consistent with the purposes of the SAA to minimize the public's exposure to airport noise and safety hazards and is, therefore, irrelevant. (e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 17 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xviii. Finding 18 74. Finding 18 provides as follows: The ALUP contains land use criteria for a Maneuvering Zone and S 1 -C Zone that have no equivalent in the Handbook Guidelines, and an S -2 Zone that is larger in size and contains unduly restrictive use limitations compared to that recommended by the Handbook guidelines (See Handbook, Page 3 -15 through Page 3 -16), yet no facts or data supporting the configuration or the use limitations are available. Such unnecessary and unjustified restrictions may constitute a `take' and it is not in the community's interest to unnecessarily limit the City's ability to accommodate desired infill growth. Therefore, the City will opt to exercise its rights under Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) to overrule the ALUC with regard to this matter. The City's overrule is supported by the fact that the combination of LUCE policies and the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) provide standards for development that protect public health and safety consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as evidenced in the analysis shown in the Airport Compatibility Report, and are consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and protect public health and safety consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as evidenced in the analysis shown in the Airport Compatibility Report incorporated by reference. The policies, programs and implementation of the LUCE include standards that address development intensity, density, and prohibited uses; infill development standards, height limitations and other hazards to flight; noise, buyer awareness measures, avigation easements; airspace obstruction; open land; non - conforming uses and reconstruction; and City review. The Compatibility Report section 4.3 evaluated adjustment factors and determined that no safety zone adjustments are required to California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook safety zone configurations for SBP. Evaluation and recommendations listed in Section 9 of the Compatibility Report indicate that Page 32 of 65 compliance with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidance for uses appropriate to each safety zone meets the State Aeronautics Act Section 21674.7(b) direction to discourage incompatible land uses around the airport. 75. Analysis of Finding 18: (a) With respect to the existence of Aviation Safety Area S -lc and the size and configuration of Aviation Safety Area S -2, the City has acknowledged (see Finding 8), that state law vests in the ALUC the full authority to designate aviation safety zones which are different in size and configuration from the generic safety zones depicted in the Handbook. (b) The assertion that "no facts or data supporting the configuration or the use limitations are available" is untrue. A detailed discussion of the considerations that resulted in the size, shape, and configuration of the aviation safety zones for SBP was presented at the June 19, 2013 meeting of the ALUC. This presentation was viewed by representatives of the CDD and a recording of the material presented is accessible at the following link: http: / /slocounty.granicus. coin /MediaPlayer.php ?view_id =33 &clip_id =1527. (c) The assertions that the current ALUP "contains unduly restrictive growth limitations" or "unnecessary and unjustified restrictions" are conclusory and not supported by any facts or evidence. (d) As set forth in the analysis contained within Paragraphs 17, 23 -25 and 41 supra, the assertion that "the City's overrule is supported by the fact that the combination of LUCE policies and the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) provide standards for development that protect public health and safety consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as evidenced in the analysis shown in the Airport Compatibility Report, and are consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and protect public health and safety consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as evidenced in the analysis shown in the Airport Compatibility Report incorporated by reference" is not supported by fact or evidence and is insufficient to demonstrate that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will be as effective as the ALUP in promoting the purpose of the SAA to "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses" as required by PUC Section 21670. (e) Proposed Finding 18 states that "The Compatibility Report section 4.3 evaluated adjustment factors and determined that no safety zone adjustments are required to California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook safety zone configurations for SBP." As discussed in Paragraphs 23 -25 supra, only the ALUC is vested with the discretion to apply the recommendations set forth in the Handbook. Moreover, the Johnson Report devoted minimal consideration to the need to adjust the generic aviation safety zones set forth in the Handbook for operational, meteorological, and geographic conditions at SBP. The ALUC has formally informed the City of this deficiency in the ALUC Report (see Exhibit D). The following Page 33 of 65 language contained within the Johnson Report provides an example illustrative of the Johnson Report's failure to adjust safety zones for the specific operational characteristics of SBP consistent with the Handbook: "High terrain exists in the area of SBP but does not impede the standard traffic pattern" (see Johnson Report, page 37). In actuality, the visual glideslope for Runway 29 requires a 3.25° descent (rather than the standard 3.00° slope) and the GPS approach to Runway 29 requires a 3.47° slope precisely because of high terrain in the vicinity. (f) It should also be noted that within the past ten (10) years there has been a fatal airplane crash within the SBP airport planning area due to an aircraft impacting high terrain during departure. (g) As discussed in Paragraph 27 supra, the City has not demonstrated that the membership of its City Council includes two (2) members with aeronautical expertise or that the airport provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates have been approved by Caltrans, requirements placed on "designated body" counties and "designated agency" counties, respectively. (h) The allegation that restrictions contained within the ALUP may constitute a `take' is conclusory and not supported by any factual evidence or legal analysis (see the analysis contained within Paragraph 84 infra). (i) Based on the foregoing, Finding 18 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xix. Finding 19 76. Finding 19 provides as follows: The planned facilities identified in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan, and on the FAA - approved ALP accommodate forecast demand. However, as noted in the SBP Master Plan Update, "the cost - effective, efficient, and orderly development of an airport should rely more upon actual demand at an airport than on a time -based forecast figure" (See Chapter 5 of the Airport Compatibility Report for a complete discussion of and validation of the AMP Forecast for use as intended under the PUC Section 21675), "that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years." This is why the planning of facilities at SBP is based on milestones of short, intermediate, and long term aviation activity versus actual years even though the Master Plan forecast covered 20 years from when it was published in 2004. The planning of facilities at SBP incorporates milestones of short, intermediate, and long term aviation activity indicate when facilities will respond to aviation activity in addition to the anticipated forecast horizon. 77. Response to Finding 19: Page 34 of 65 (a) The existing ALUP was adopted in 2005 and was based upon the aviation activity forecasts of the then - current 1998 Airport Master Plan. For purposes of the ALUP, however, the Airport Master Plan forecast was extended to the year 2025 (i.e. 20 years from the date of adoption of the ALUP). Finding 19 appears to support this forecast methodology and, therefore, provides no valid support for an overrule of the ALUP's determination of inconsistency with respect to the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update. (b) For purposes of the upcoming update of the ALUP, the ALUC has elected to consider a forty (40) year planning horizon, a time frame which is more appropriate to the actual expected future lifespan of the airport and of surrounding development and which is consistent with the following guidance provided by the Handbook and previously set forth in Paragraph 71 supra: For compatibility planning, however, 20 years may be shortsighted. For most airports, a lifespan of more than 20 years can reasonably be presumed. Moreover, the need to avoid incompatible land use development will exist for as long as an airport exists. Once development occurs near an airport, it is virtually impossible —or, at the very least, costly and time consuming —to modify the land uses to ones that are more compatible with airport activities (see Handbook, page 3 -5). The "at least" phrase in the statute warrants emphasis. The 20 -year time frame should be considered a minimum for compatibility plans. Noise impacts (as well as other compatibility concerns) should be viewed from the longest practical time perspective (see Handbook, page 3 -6). In conducting noise analyses for ALUCPs, the long -range time frame is almost always of greatest significance (see Handbook, page 3 -6). (c) The Johnson Report utilizes aviation activity forecasts from the 2005 Airport Master Plan, which, unlike the forecasts used in formulating the current ALUP, extend only through the year 2023. (d) The ALUC has consulted with Caltrans regarding the methodology employed to extend the aviation activity forecasts of the current Airport Master Plan to a 40 -year planning horizon in the pending ALUP update and has been advised that it is consistent with the Handbook and PUC Section 21675(a). (e) Given the above, it can be concluded as follows: (i) The discussion contained in Finding 20 presents no factual evidence to suggest that the forecast methodology employed in constructing the airport land use compatibility provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will minimize the public's Page 35 of 65 exposure to noise and safety hazards, when compared with the provisions of the current ALUP, and (ii) The fact that the draft update to the ALUP contains a forty (40) year aviation activity forecast strongly suggests that LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will not minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards as effectively as the ALUP update. (f) Based on the foregoing, Finding 19 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xx. Finding 20 78. Finding 20 provides as follows: The recession that began in 2007 had a great impact on air travel. SBP lost nearly 34% of its enplanements as carriers responded to the rising price of oil, declining demand and realigned air service networks. Actual annual aviation activity at SBP has been significantly lower than the SBP Master Plan forecasts. Even though the SBP Master Plan Update forecast is based on aggressive growth at SBP, and trends that are not in line with existing activity and the FAA forecast, facilities called for in the Master Plan it support the ultimate physical development of the Airport, which is shown in the County- adopted Master Plan and on the FAA - approved ALP. The preferred use of the SBP Master Plan Update forecast is consistent with the Handbook guidance that, "[even when the forecasts and contours in a master plan do not extend at least 20 years into the future, information contained about the intended role and future physical characteristics of the airport is needed for compatibility planning (See Handbook, Pages 3 -7, 3- 8)." Actual annual aviation activity at SBP was 66% lower than the SBP Master Plan forecast for 2012, and this gap grew larger in 2013 with even lower SBP aircraft operations. Thus, the Master Plan forecast and associated noise contours form a conservative base of information to use when considering long term compatibility of land uses through the LUCE update. The proposed land uses and policies do not conflict with the AMP. 79. Analysis of Finding 20: (a) While it is true that the number of annual airport operations at SBP and across the country has been adversely impacted by recent developments in the US economy, there is no evidence to suggest that operations at SBP will not rebound as the national economy recovers. On the contrary, a closer examination of national, statewide, and local aviation activity reveals that SBP has retained its market share of California and US operations, in spite of the economic downturn and is well - positioned to participate in any future recovery. Page 36 of 65 (b) The statement that airport operations in 2013 were lower than in 2012 is misleading and may be deceptive to readers who are not familiar with the principles of data analysis and statistical significance. Within any set of collected data, some variation is to be expected merely by chance. Such variations do not represent an indication of any real change and are considered to be "statistically insignificant." The amount of variation due to chance in any set of data is related to a quantity termed the "standard deviation" of the data. This is a measure of the degree to which the collected data is tightly grouped or widely spread. Data points can only be considered as significantly different from the mean (roughly speaking, the average) of the sample if they vary from the mean by two (2) standard deviations or more. Between 1990 and 2012, the annual variation in the number of operations at SBP has varied from a maximum of 26,087 between 1998 and 1999 to a minimum of 1,256 between 2009 and 2010. Statistically, the mean year -to -year fluctuation has been 7,337 annual operations, with a standard deviation of 6,658 annual operations. In consequence, any annual change in the number of airport operations that is less than 20,653 operations cannot be reliably considered to be anything other than a random fluctuation and should not be considered for planning purposes. In the case of the annual airport operations data for SBP there have been, since 1990, only two (2) statistically significant year -to -year changes in the number of operations — an increase of 21,404 operations between 1990 and 1991 and an increase of 26,087 operations between 1998 and 1999. Consequently, the airport operations data contained in Finding 20 does not provide any support or justification for an action to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency. (c) Regardless of the City's opinion of the airport activity forecasts contained within the current Airport Master Plan, Airport Master Plan forecasts are established by PUC Section 21675(a) as the only legitimate forecasts for airport land use compatibility planning. The discretion to "extend" the Airport Master Plan forecast where necessary to meet the planning horizon rests with the ALUC. (d) The City's refusal to accept the priority conferred by the SAA upon the airport activity forecasts contained within the current Airport Master Plan that extend at least 20 years and the discretion of the ALUC to extend the forecast contained within the Airport Master Plan as necessary to meet the requirements of PUC Section 21675(a) supports the contention that the City's LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are inconsistent with the stated purpose of the SAA to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. (e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 20 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxi. Finding 21 80. Finding 21 provides as follows: Page 37 of 65 The SBP Master Plan Update forecast greatly exceeds the current actual operations activity as well as the FAA's Terminal Area Forecast of operations that extends out to 2040. As per FAA AC 150/5070 -613, Airport Master Plans, master plan forecasts for operations, based aircraft, and enplanements are considered to be consistent with the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) if they differ by less than 10 percent in the 5 -year forecast and 15 percent in the 10 -year period for "other commercial service airports" like SBP. The current Master Plan for SBP differs more than 10% in the 5 -year forecast and 15% in the 10 -year forecast which indicates that the operational projections in the Master Plan are more aggressive than likely and may be used as a very long term conservative projection of potential aircraft operational noise. Thus, the Master Plan forecast and associated noise contours form a conservative base of information to use when considering long term compatibility of land uses through the LUCE update. (See Handbook, Pages 3 -7, 3 -8). 81. Analysis of Finding 21: (a) The FAA Advisory Circular cited in Finding 21 (FAA AC 150/5070 -613) is only applicable to the preparation and revision of Airport Master Plans. The requirements of FAA AC 150/5070 -613 were adhered to in the formulation and adoption of the current Airport Master Plan for SBP. FAA AC 150/5070 -613, however, has no applicability with respect to either an established and duly- adopted Airport Master Plan or to the preparation and adoption of an ALUP. (b) As previously discussed supra, PUC Section 21675(a) requires as follows: Each commission shall formulate an airport land use compatibility plan that will provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The commission's airport land use compatibility plan 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 anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years [ ... ] (c) As discussed in Paragraph 79 supra, regardless of the City's opinion of the airport activity forecasts contained within the current Airport Master Plan, Airport Master Plan forecasts are established by PUC Section 21675(a) as the only legitimate forecasts for airport land use compatibility planning. The discretion to "extend" the Airport Master Plan forecast where necessary to meet the planning horizon rests with the ALUC. In addition, based on the language contained within PUC Section 21675(a), the FAA Terminal Area Forecast is not an appropriate basis for airport land use compatibility planning. Page 38 of 65 (d) As also discussed in Paragraph 79 supra, the City's refusal to accept the priority conferred by the SAA upon the airport activity forecasts contained within the current Airport Master Plan that extend at least 20 years and the discretion of the ALUC to extend the forecast contained within the Airport Master Plan as necessary to meet the requirements of PUC Section 21675(a) supports the contention that the City's LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the SAA to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. (e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 21 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxii. Finding 22 82. Finding 22 provides as follows: The City is concerned that limiting new residential and other noise sensitive uses to areas outside the 55 dB CNEL noise contour may be subject to legal challenge as a taking of property without just compensation in light of FAA and Caltrans' guidelines with respect to land use compatibility and the lack of data supporting the application of the 55 dB standard to an urban area such as San Luis Obispo. The LUCE update relies on the approved Airport Master Plan and associated EIR to identify the noise contours applicable to the community of San Luis Obispo. Section 6.3 of the Compatibility Report uses the Airport Master Plan operational forecasts to evaluate the existing and projected noise environment for the community. The LUCE update and implementation through the Airport Overlay Zone apply the 60 dB CNEL contour as the maximum acceptable noise exposure for new residential uses. This complies with Table 4B in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook which indicates that 60 dB is suitable for new development around most airports and that it is particularly appropriate in mild climates where windows are often open. 83. Analysis of Finding 22: (a) The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates and the associated Johnson Report are inconsistent with the recommendations set forth in the Handbook, because they omit the concept of normalization of airport noise contours. Section 4.2.3 of the Handbook discusses in detail the concept of normalization of aviation noise exposure as a means of adjusting aviation noise standards and for determining and predicting expected community reaction. The Handbook strongly encourages planning agencies to utilize the normalization procedure when adopting noise compatibility standards for a particular airport: Page 39 of 65 Over the years, planners have also found normalization to be a valuable tool for establishing appropriate noise level limits for new noise - sensitive development in the vicinity of an airport. This latter application of normalization is particularly well- suited to airport land use planning (see Handbook, page 4 -4). At the present time, normalization is the best method available for quantitatively adjusting noise levels to account for local conditions in an effort to establish appropriate noise limits for noise - sensitive land uses near airports (see Handbook, page 4 -6). ALUCs are encouraged to consider the normalization factors listed in Table 4A when setting noise level limits for new noise - sensitive development in the vicinity of an airport (see Handbook, page 4 -6). Table 413, which is referenced is Finding 22 above, includes the specific instruction that "When setting criteria for a specific airport, other characteristics of the airport and its environs also need to be considered. See Table 4A for normalization factors." When the airport- related noise exposure levels of Table 4B are properly normalized for SBP and its environs, the maximum permissible CNEL for those portions of the Airport Planning Area where existing development is rural in nature (e.g., most of those portions planning area that are under County jurisdiction, most of the portion of the planning area included in the Airport Area Specific Plan, and some parts of the Margarita Area) is found to be 45 to 50 dB. For those portions of the Planning Area where existing development is suburban in nature (including most property within the City limits), normalization reveals an appropriate maximum aviation - related noise level of 50 to 55 dB. In the interest of simplicity, uniformity, and clarity, the current ALUP applies the least restrictive of these normalized criteria — the 55 dB CNEL noise contour — as the maximum appropriate exposure for new noise - sensitive land uses. (b) A regulatory action is deemed a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment only if the regulation "completely deprive[s] an owner of all economically beneficial use of her property" (emphasis in original) (see Allegretti & Company v. County of Imperial (2006) 138 Cal.AppAth 1261, 1277 -78). If the regulatory action is not a per se taking, the challenge is governed by an ad hoc factual inquiry (see id.). There is no set formula but several factors have particular significance, including the economic impact on the claimant and, particularly, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment - backed expectations and the the character of the government action (for instance whether it amounts to a physical invasion or instead merely affects property interests through "some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good ") (see id.). With respect to the per se regulatory takings analysis, the ALUP allows for a wide variety of commercial, industrial, and agricultural land uses within the 55 dB CNEL airport noise contour. Accordingly, the policies contained within the ALUP do not amount to a per se taking. With respect to the ad hoc regulatory takings analysis, it would be difficult to argue that the policies set forth within the Page 40 of 65 ALUP interfere with distinct investment - backed expectations given how long they have been in effect (and their incorporation into the current LUCE and Zoning Ordinance). In addition, the character of the government action (the protection of health and safety consistent with the purposes of the SAA) does not support a takings claim. Lastly, an argument could be made that an ALUP does not even constitute a "government action" for purposes of a takings analysis. (c) Finding 22 provides no evidence or argument that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will further the purpose of the SAA of minimizing "the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," as compared to the degree of protection from noise and safety hazards provided by the current ALUP. (d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 22 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxiii. Finding 23 84. Finding 23 provides as follows: Despite a Public Records Act request of the ALUC and direct outreach to the original consultant noted on Figures 1 and 2 in the existing ALUP, the ALUC has been unable to produce the factual basis for the noise analysis and related technical assumptions (projected numbers of operations, types of aircraft, time of day of operations) used to create the noise contours used in the Existing ALUP. Noise contours shown in Figure 1 of the ALUP indicate contours are based on a hypothetical maximum runway capacity which is inconsistent with Public Utility Code Section 21675(a) which requires that the ALUP be based upon the most recent Airport Master Plan. Therefore, requiring compatibility of the LUCE update and associated Airport Overlay Zone implementation to the ALUP noise contours is not appropriate. The LUCE update and associated implementation relies on the approved Airport Master Plan and associated EIR aircraft operations forecast noise contours as those applicable to the community of San Luis Obispo in compliance with the Public Utilities Code Section 21675(a) and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Chapters 3 and 4. 85. Analysis of Finding 23: (a) The text of PUC Section 21675(a) (as set forth in full in Paragraph 51 supra) makes no reference to the "most recent" Airport Master Plan or an obligation on the part of ALUCs to immediately update an existing ALUP upon adoption of an update to the Airport Master Plan. Instead, PUC Section 21675(a) provides that the ALUC "shall include and shall be based on a long -range master plan or airport layout plan, as determined by [Caltrans]" (emphasis added). In addition, the omission of any such statutory obligation is noteworthy given the requirement contained within Government Code Section 65302.3 that a local agency amend its Page 41 of 65 general plan or any specific plan within 180 days of any amendment to an ALUP. Based on discussions with Caltrans, it is rarely the case that ALUPs are immediately updated upon adoption of an updated Airport Master Plan; and any such lag does not render the current ALUP invalid or incompliant with PUC Section 21675(a). (b) As discussed in Paragraph 77 supra, the current ALUP is based upon the Airport Master Plan in effect at the time that the ALUP was formulated and adopted, and the airport noise contours were obtained from that document. These contours do reflect "the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years." (c) Finding 23 is incorrect in stating that the ALUC has failed to provide a factual basis for the noise contours included in the current ALUP. The City has been informed that the ALUP contours were adopted from the Environmental Impact Report for the 1998 Airport Master Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (Crawford Multari & Clark Associates), which was current and in force at the time the ALUP was revised and adopted. The Handbook specifically endorses airport master plans as a valid source from which airport noise contours may be obtained (Handbook, pages 3 -7 and 3 -8). (d) In an effort to achieve a degree of consistency between the City's General Plan and the ALUP and allay the City's concerns about the origin of airport noise contours, the ALUC offered to accept the City's Airport Noise Contours, as adopted and documented in Figure 6, page 4 -17 of the Noise Element of the City's General Plan. Since the City has previously accepted and adopted these contours, the ALUC presumes that the City is satisfied with "the underlying assumptions or technical facts used to create the noise contours provided." (e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 23 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxiv. Finding 24 86. Finding 24 provides as follows: Table 413, Noise Compatibility Criteria Alternatives (New Residential Land Uses) from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook establishes the three CNEL values commonly used as the limit for acceptable residential noise exposure and their applicability. On Page 4 -7, the Handbook states that areas with a noise level of 60 dB CNEL are "suitable for new residential development around most airports" and "particularly appropriate in mild climates where windows are often open." 87. Analysis of Finding 24: (a) Finding 24 appears to merely restate the reference to Table 413 of the Handbook contained in Finding 22. Like Finding 22, Finding 24 selectively cites from the Page 42 of 65 Handbook and in a manner that fails to convey the actual recommendations set forth therein. Specifically, Finding 24 fails to mention the strong recommendation for normalization of CNEL contours included on pages 4 -4 through 4 -6 of the Handbook and fails to note that Table 4B itself indicates "When setting criteria for a specific airport, other characteristics of the airport and its environs also need to be considered. See Table 4A for normalization factors." Collective application of the recommendations included in the Handbook (including normalization) supports the 55 dB CNEL contour, rather than the 60 dB contour, as the appropriate criterion for maximal noise exposure for noise - sensitive land uses in the vicinity of SBP. (b) Finding 24 provides no evidence or argument that adoption of the either the 65 dB CNEL airport noise contour advocated by the Johnson Report or the 60 dB CNEL airport noise contour advocated by draft proposed LUCE will "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," as effectively as the 55 dB CNEL noise contours included in the current ALUP. (c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 24 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxv. Finding 25 88. Finding 25 provides as follows: The City's proposed airport noise standard for new residential uses is 60 dB CNEL, consistent with the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook recommendations for urban areas as shown on page 4 -8 in Figure 4A. The Handbook shows 60 dB CNEL as a typical setting for urban low- density residential uses. Further, the City's proposed noise standard is based upon verified and validated noise contours from the County- approved Airport Master Plan EIR using the FAA's latest version of the Integrated Noise Model (INM). ) (See Airport Compatibility Report Section 6, Airport Noise, Pages 42 -52). 89. Analysis of Finding 25: (a) Finding 25 is repetitious of both Finding 22 and Finding 24 and the ALUC hereby incorporates its comments to Finding 22 and Finding 24 in its response to Finding 25. (b) As previously noted, the City's approach is flawed, because it does not conform with the recommendations set forth in the Handbook (including the recommendation regarding normalization) and because the espoused airport noise contours fail to depict the 55 dB CNEL contour and are associated with an aviation activity forecast that extends only to the year 2023. Page 43 of 65 (c) Finding 25 provides no evidence or argument that adoption of either the 65 dB CNEL airport noise contour advocated by the Johnson Report or the 60 dB CNEL airport noise contour advocated by the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," as effectively as the 55 dB CNEL noise contour included in the current ALUP. On the contrary, if enacted, the provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would increase the public's exposure to airport- related noise when compared to the provisions of the- current ALUP. (d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 25 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxvi. Finding 26 90. Finding 26 provides as follows: The aircraft noise analysis prepared for the Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Report is documented in Chapter 5 of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The assumptions regarding aircraft operations amounts, types, spatial and temporal distribution is reflected in Figure 5.1 -6 of the AMP EIR. The AMP EIR operations assumptions were entered into the Integrated Noise Model version 7.Od and generated noise contours that were compared to the AMP EIR on page 52 of the Compatibility Report. The resultant noise contours confirmed the AMP EIR information as an accurate mapping of the long term noise impact of the airport's aviation activity that is tied to the ultimate facilities development depicted in the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan. The City's use of the Airport Master Plan noise contours for purposes of development of its LUCE Update noise contours and the application of a 60 dB CNEL exterior noise standard and 45 dB CNEL interior noise standard for new residential uses is appropriate and is consistent with FAA and State aircraft noise planning standards (Handbook, Page 4 -46). 91. Analysis of Finding 26: (a) Finding 26 is repetitious of Finding 22, Finding 24, and Finding 25, and the ALUC hereby incorporates its comments to Finding 22, Finding 24 and Finding 25 in its response to Finding 26. (b) Finding 26 is flawed, because there is no documentation that the modeling of noise contours associated with the Johnson Report was performed by any firm or individual with demonstrated expertise in acoustic analysis. (c) Finding 26 provides no evidence or argument that adoption of the either the 65 dB CNEL airport noise contour advocated by the Johnson Report or the 60 dB CNEL airport noise contour advocated by the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will "minimize the Page 44 of 65 public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," as effectively as the 55 dB CNEL noise contour included in the current ALUP. (d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 26 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxvii. Finding 27 92. Finding 27 provides as follows: The aircraft noise analysis prepared for the SBP Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA/EIR provides an accurate mapping (See Airport Compatibility Report, Pages 51 -52) of the long term noise impact of the Airport's aviation activity that is tied to the ultimate facilities development depicted in the FAA - approved ALP. The City's use of the Airport Master Plan noise contours for purposes of development of its LUCE Update noise contours and the application of a 60 dB CNEL exterior noise standard and 45 dB CNEL interior noise standard for new residential uses is appropriate and is consistent with FAA and State aircraft noise planning standards (Handbook, Page 4 -46). The SBP EA/EIR found no existing or planned noise impact on the surrounding community as a result of the full build out of the Airport. The ALUP noise contours are not based on the SBP Master Plan forecast operations but rather on a theoretical "capacity" of the runways with no connection to the underlying demand or proven usage characteristics of the runways, resulting in an unrealistic and vastly over - stated noise impact. The City's LUCE is appropriately based on the SBP Master Plan forecast operations with all of the facts and assumptions clearly available in the SBP EA/EIR for objective review. The ALUC does not present the underlying assumptions or technical facts used to create the noise contours provided in the ALUP, and have not been able to make this information available for review. The LUCE update and associated implementation relies on the approved Airport Master Plan and associated EIR aircraft operations forecast noise contours as those applicable to the community of San Luis Obispo in compliance with the Public Utilities Code §21675(a) and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Chapters 3 and 4. 93: Analysis of Finding 27: (a) Finding 27 is repetitious of Finding 22, Finding 24, Finding 25 and Finding 26, and the ALUC hereby incorporates its comments to Finding 22, Finding 24, Finding 25 and Finding 26 in response to Finding 27. Page 45 of 65 (b) Finding 27 provides no evidence or argument that adoption of the either the 65 dB CNEL airport noise contour advocated by the Johnson Report or the 60 dB CNEL airport noise contour advocated by the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," as effectively as the 55 dB CNEL noise contour included in the current ALUP. (c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 27 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxviii. Finding 28 94. Finding 28 provides as follows: The ALUP noise contours are not based on the SBP master plan forecast but rather on a theoretical "capacity" of the runways with no connection to the underlying demand or proven usage characteristics of the usage characteristics of the runway, resulting in unrealistic and vastly over - stated noise impact. The City's LUCE is appropriately based on the master plan forecast operations with all of the facts and assumptions clearly available. The ALUP does not present the underlying assumptions or technical facts used to create the noise contours provided in the ALUP and have not been able to make this information available for review. The LUCE update and associated implementation relies on the approved Airport Master Plan and associated EIR aircraft operations forecast as those applicable to the community of San Luis Obispo in compliance with the Public Utilities Code §21675(a) and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. 95. Analysis of Finding 28: (a) As discussed in Paragraph 85 supra, the airport noise contours utilized in the current ALUP were adopted from the EIR for the Airport Master Plan which was valid and in effect at the time that the ALUP was amended. The EIR was prepared by the well- respected firm of Crawford Multari & Clark Associates and the noise contours were constructed by Brown Buntin & Associates. Thus, the source of the airport noise contours is consistent with the SAA and the Handbook (page 3 -7 and 3 -8). (b) The ALUP did not develop or sponsor the generation of airport noise contours contained in the Airport Master Plan EIR. If the City is desirous of additional technical details it should look to the sponsoring agency or to the firms involved in constructing the contours. (c) As discussed in Paragraph 85 supra, the ALUC has offered to accept the Page 46 of 65 City's Airport Noise Contours, as adopted and documented in Figure 6, page 4 -17 of the Noise Element of the City's General Plan. (d) Finding 28 mischaracterizes the requirements of PUC Section 21675(a) and the recommendations set forth in the Handbook by implying that an ALUP must include noise contours which are based upon an airport master plan activity forecast. No such requirements can be found within the actual text of PUC Section 21675(a) which provides as follows in pertinent part: The commission's airport land use compatibility plan 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 anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years. Similarly, the Handbook lists five (5) "potential sources of noise contours" and provides that "Airport Master Plans are one of the preferred" sources for [ ... ] noise contours" (emphasis added) (Handbook, page 3 -7). In addition, the Handbook places no constraints on the methodology or planning horizon used in creating airport noise contours that are incorporated into airport land use compatibility plans, other than to require that they should reflect expected activity at the airport for a minimum of twenty (20) years into the future. It is of note that airport land use plans are not required to include airport noise contours at all. The Handbook also endorses, as an alternative, the construction of composite zones and development criteria which combine safety, noise, and overflight factors in a single set of compatibility zones. (e) In contrast, the Johnson Report and the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are inconsistent with PUC Section 21675(a), since they are based upon the 2005 Airport Master Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, which reflects the anticipated growth of the airport only through the year 2023. (f) Finding 28 provides no evidence or argument that adoption of the either the 65 dB CNEL airport noise contour advocated by the Johnson Report or the 60 dB CNEL airport noise contour advocated by the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," as effectively as the 55 dB CNEL noise contours included in the current ALUP. (g) Based on the foregoing, Finding 28 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxlx. Finding 29 96. Finding 29 provides as follows: Page 47 of 65 Seventy -five percent (75 %) of all aircraft noise complaints collected by County Airport officials over the last five (5) years are generated by three (3) individuals as provided in a report by the ALUC to the City of San Luis Obispo. 97. Analysis of Finding 29: (a) Between January 1, 2009 and May 31, 2013, staff at SBP received 1,651 complaints regarding airport noise and overflight. (b) Virtually all of the noise complaints arose from residences located outside the 60 dB airport noise contour proposed by the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update as the criterion for prohibiting new noise - sensitive development. This indicates that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update would be ineffective in minimizing the public's exposure to excessive noise. (c) The number of noise complaints recorded greatly underestimates the actual number of persons who are disturbed by airport- related noise, as most such persons are unaware of the procedure for recording a complaint. (d) The percentage of persons who will be highly annoyed by aircraft noise increases exponentially with increasing Ldn (see Hansell, AL. BMJ 2013:8432 doi: 10. 1 136/bmj.f5432). At an Ldn of 65 dB, twenty seven percent (27 %) of the population will be highly annoyed and at 60 dB almost nineteen percent (19 %) will be so affected. When the Ldn drops to 55 dB, only about twelve percent (12 %) of the population is highly annoyed and at 50 dB, the percentage is approximately six percent (6 %). (e) Adoption of the 60 dB CNEL noise contour proposed by the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would be less effective than the current ALUP at minimizing the public's exposure to airport noise impacts and would be in conflict with the purposes of the SAA. (f) Finding 29 does not speak to the question of whether the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. It is not, therefore, relevant to the requirements imposed upon a local agency that seeks to overrule the decision of an ALUC under PUC Sections 21675(a) and 21670. g) Based on the foregoing, Finding 29 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxx. Finding 30 98. Finding 98 provides as follows: The San Luis Obispo Regional Airport is not included in the list of ten "Noise Page 48 of 65 Problem" Airports in California as defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 5000, et seq. 99. Analysis of Finding 98: (a) The fact that SBP has not been designated as a "Noise Problem" airport indicates the effectiveness of the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to excessive airport noise and fulfilling the purposes of the SAA. (b) Finding 30 presents no evidence that adoption of the recommendations of the Johnson Report or the provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would be as effective as the ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. (c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 30 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxxi. Finding 31 100. Finding 31 provides as follows: The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors have [sic] not applied to the state to have SBP defined as a "Noise Problem" Airport in California as defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 5000 et seq. 101. Analysis of Finding 31: (a) The fact that the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors has not applied to the state to have SBP designated as a "Noise Problem" airport indicates the effectiveness of the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to excessive airport noise and fulfilling the purposes of the SAA. (b) Finding 31 presents no evidence that adoption of the recommendations of the Johnson Report or the provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would be as effective as the ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. (c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 31 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxxii. Finding 32 102. Finding 32 provides as follows: Review processes and height restrictions supported through the LUCE and Airport Overlay Zone require compliance with FAA Part 77 criteria. Therefore, the Draft LUCE update and associated implementation through an Airport Page 49 of 65 Overlay Zone which reflect the Handbook guidance for the most recent Airport Master Plan will not impact the Airport's ability to qualify for payments from the Aeronautics Account to support airport development as stated in PUC Section 21659. 103. Analysis of Finding 32: (a) The current ALUP prohibits any "structure, landscaping, apparatus, or other feature that extends more than 200 feet above ground level or more than 409 feet above mean sea level (whichever is greater) or any imaginary surface established under Section 77.25 or 77.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. (b) Finding 32 does not speak to the purposes of the SAA, as set forth in PUC Section 21670 and does not demonstrate that the draft LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would minimize the exposure of the public to airport noise and safety hazards, as compared to the current ALUP. (c) The section of the PUC that specifies adequate height restrictions as a condition for receiving payments from the Aeronautics Account is Section 21688(a), not 21659. (d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 32 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxxiii. Finding 33 104. Finding 33 provides as follows: The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook uses Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) and certain Part 77 surfaces to help delineate recommended airspace protection zones around airports. The Draft LUCE update and associated implementation through an Airport Overlay Zone incorporate compliance with Part 77 surfaces and other requirements to address potential obstructions near the airport. Public Utilities Code §21403(c) provides the right of aircraft to safe access to public airports including the right of flight within the zone of approach without hazard. This zone of approach shall conform to Part 77 regulations which are incorporated into the LUCE and Airport Overlay Zone. 105. Analysis of Finding 33: (a) Finding 33 does not speak to the purposes of the SAA, as set forth in PUC Section 21670 and does not demonstrate that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would minimize the exposure of the public to airport noise and safety hazards, as compared to the current ALUP. It is not, therefore, relevant to the City's proposal to overrule the decision of the Page 50 of 65 ALUC (b) Based on the foregoing, Finding 33 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxxiv. Finding 34 106. Finding 34 provides as follows: Safety provisions to address aircraft in distress as specified in the Handbook's "Guidelines for Extent of Open Land Near Airports" criteria (beginning on Page 4 -31 of the Handbook) is addressed in the Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.050. This section calls out open land areas already planned for and secured in addition to open land objectives for the overlay zones that comply with those listed on page 4 -31 and 32 of the Handbook. 107. Analysis of Finding 34: (a) The current ALUP establishes adequate and appropriate open space within the airport land use planning area through the mechanism of an Airport Compatible Open Space Plan (ACOS). The ACOS is developed by a local agency and reviewed and approved by the ALUC. The ALUP provides for additional density of development in most aviation safety areas on properties that are encompassed by an ACOS. Evaluation and approval of the ACOS ensures that the location, size, orientation, and topography of each open space is adequate to allow its ready identification by the pilot of an aircraft in distress and to provide a usable alternative to an off - airport landing in developed neighborhoods. (b) In contrast, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates provide no mechanism for the review or evaluation of proposed open space areas by any group with expertise in aviation. This deficiency is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the SAA to "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." (c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 34 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxxv. Finding 35 108. Finding 35 provides as follows: The instrument procedures at SBP are found in the Airport Master Plan beginning on Page 1 -14 provide straight -in final approaches to Runway 11 and Runway 29 with vertical guidance for pilots flying in instrument weather conditions creating the safest approach possible and avoiding the need to use circling approaches (See Page 51 of 65 Airport Land Use Compatibility Report, Page 27 and Handbook, Page 3 -22). Since no adjustments to flight routes have been identified for the airport, the configuration and use limitations associated with the Handbook - defined safety zones is adequate for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. Airport Overlay Zone Chapter 17.57 identifies overlay zones 1- 6 and associated land use standards that are consistent with Chapter 4 of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook safety zones 1 -6 and land use limitations. 109. Analysis of Finding 35: (a) Although straight -in instrument approaches are available for Runways 11 and 29 and a straight -out departure is available for Runway 29, there are also three (3) additional instrument procedures that are not aligned with runways. In formulating the current ALUP, the ALUC considered these arrivals and departures and ensured that the airport's safety zones were appropriate to accommodate them. Failure to adequately consider local factors that affect aircraft operations is a major deficiency in the Johnson Report and the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates with respect to compliance with the Handbook requirements and the purposes of the SAA. (b) Finding 35 is incorrect in asserting that the straight -in approaches to Runway 11 and 29 avoid the need to use circling approaches. Although a straight -in instrument approach is theoretically available for Runway 11, prevailing winds at SBP frequently render landing on Runway 11 unsafe and require pilots approaching the airport from the north to circle - to -land on Runway 29. (c) Finding 35 is incorrect and deceptive in suggesting that the generic safety zones depicted in the Handbook are "recommended." The Handbook itself indicates very clearly that this is not the case: The generic safety zones presented in the preceding section are intended just as a starting place for the development of zones appropriate for a particular airport. In some cases, the zones might be quite suitable as is. In most instances, however, some degree of adjustment of the generic zones is necessary in recognition of the physical and operational characteristics of the airport (see Handbook, page 3 -20). Various other aeronautical factors that may warrant adjustments to the sizes or shapes of the generic zones are listed in Table 3A. Some of these factors relate to the configuration of the runways. Others are dictated by the way the runways are used. Among the adjustment factors noted in Table 3A below are the peculiarities of the flight routes normally flown at a particular airport. While this factor is relevant Page 52 of 65 and should be considered, it is also essential to recognize that the route followed by an aircraft when in distress may not be a normal route. Aircraft accidents can occur in places seldom overflown by aircraft. Several other factors deserve consideration when defining safety zones. These factors involve characteristics of the airport environs (see Handbook, page 3 -21). (d) As discussed supra, adoption of the Handbook's generic safety zones does not represent common practice. Among 139 adopted California airport land use plans reviewed by an ALUC sub - committee, the generic zones were utilized without modification in only 6.5 %. (e) Finding 35 presents no evidence that the generic safety zones proposed by the Johnson Report, the draft LUCE, and the Airport Overlay Zone would minimize the public's exposure to aviation safety hazards, when compared to the safety zones established by the existing ALUP. (f) Based on the foregoing, Finding 35 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxxvi. Finding 36 110. Finding 36 provides as follows: The historical accident data at SBP is insufficient to draw conclusions about risk of accidents in the future based on frequency and consequence. However, the Handbook aggregates all data regarding accidents and incidents and integrates this data into the recommended safety zones. Each Handbook- identified safety zone represents a relatively uniform risk level that is distinct from the other zones based upon mathematical analysis of the accident location data. Appendix E of the 2011 Handbook contains updated aircraft accident information that was compared to 2002 data in order to determine if changes to the Handbook safety zones were warranted. As documented on page 3 -16 of the Handbook, evidence from analysis of the new data was insufficient to conclude that geographic distribution of accidents had significantly changed and therefore the basis for the suggested zones had not changed. The Draft LUCE update and associated implementation through an Airport Overlay Zone applies use limitations within boundaries recommended by the Handbook (See Handbook, Pages 4 -20 through 4 -25) and identifies overlay zones 1 -6 and associated land use standards that are consistent with Chapter 4 of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook safety zones 1 -6 and associated land use limitations. 111. Analysis of Finding 36: Page 53 of 65 (a) As noted above in Paragraph 109 supra, it is inaccurate and misleading to describe the generic safety zones depicted in the Handbook as "recommended by the Handbook." The generic zones are provided only as an informational resource for use by ALUCs. The Handbook does not recommend that these generic zones be utilized for land use compatibility planning at any specific airport. (b) As also noted in Paragraph 109 supra, only a tiny minority of ALUPs in California actually adopt the generic safety zones without modification. (c) Finding 35 presents no evidence that the generic safety zones proposed by the Johnson Report and the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would minimize the public's exposure to aviation safety hazards, when compared to the safety zones established by the existing ALUP. (d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 36 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxxvii. Finding 37 112. Finding 37 provides as follows: An analysis of the Handbook Safety Zone Adjustment Factors was completed for SBP in section 4.3 of the Compatibility Report and the findings indicate that no safety zone adjustments from those recommended by the Handbook are required (See Airport Land Use Compatibility Report, Pages 33 -34). 113. Analysis of Finding 37: (a) The "analysis" of safety zone adjustment factors provided in Section 4.3 of the Johnson Report is inadequate, comprising only about a page and a half of text. (b) In addition, Section 4.3 of the Johnson Report contains numerous factual errors and half - truths. By way of example, such an error includes the assertion that high terrain in the vicinity of the airport does not influence airport traffic patterns and the statement that non- precision approaches at SBP preclude descending below traffic pattern altitude. In actuality, the visual glideslope for Runway 29 requires a 3.25° descent (rather than the standard 3.00° slope) and the GPS approach to Runway 29 requires a 3.47° slope precisely because of high terrain in the vicinity. It is also of note that within the past ten (10) years, there has been a fatal airplane crash within the SBP airport planning area due to an aircraft impacting high terrain during departure. (c) A second major factual error in Section 4.3 of the Johnson Report is the statement that "Non- precision approaches are charted for SBP, including RNAV (GPS) RWY Page 54 of 65 11, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, LOC RWY 11, and VOR TACA -A but the minimum descent altitude for these procedures preclude descending below standard traffic pattern altitude within the airport influence area." The traffic pattern altitude at SBP is 1,200 feet above mean sea level (MSL) for light aircraft and 1,700 feet above MSL for twins and jets. The minimum descent altitudes (MDA) for non - precision instrument approaches at SBP are: LOC Rwy 11 1,040 feet MSL VOR -A 1,120 feet MSL RNAV (GPS) Rwy 11 1,000 feet MSL RNAV (GPS) Rwy 29 1,180 feet MSL The MDA for each of these non - precision approaches is less than the 1,200 feet MSL specified as the pattern altitude for light aircraft and substantially lower than the 1,700 feet MSL pattern altitude for twins and jets. (d) Section 4.3 of the Johnson Report discusses only the safety zone adjustment factors listed on pages 3 -21 and 3 -22 of the Handbook. Caltrans, however, recommends an airport land use plan to consider all factors that may influence flight patterns in the vicinity of the airport, including those which may be unique to the specific facility. (e) In light of the above deficiencies, Section 4.3 of the Johnson Report cannot be considered an adequate basis for determining that no safety zone adjustments are required. (f) As noted supra with regard to Findings 35 and 36, it is inaccurate and misleading to describe the generic safety zones depicted in the Handbook as "recommended by the Handbook." The generic zones are provided only as an informational resource for use by ALUCs. The Handbook does not recommend that these generic zones be utilized for land use compatibility planning at any specific airport. (g) As also noted supra, the use of the Handbook's generic safety zones does not represent a common practice. Among 139 adopted California airport land use plans reviewed by an ALUC sub - committee, the generic zones were utilized without modification in only 6.5 %. (h) Finding 37 presents no evidence that the generic safety zones proposed by the Johnson Report and the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update would minimize the public's exposure to aviation safety hazards as effectively as the safety zones established by the existing ALUP. (i) Based on the foregoing, Finding 37 does not meet the requirements set Page 55 of 65 forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxxviii. Finding 38 114. Finding 38 provides as follows: LUCE Policies and the adoption of the Airport Overlay Zone provide both a policy frame work and standards for development to ensure that development is consistent with allowable densities, height limitation, allowable uses, and other safety standards to ensure that development is evaluated for consistency with the State Aeronautics' Act. The Airport Overlay Zone took into account existing and proposed facilities identified in the Airport Master Plan (AMP) in establishing standards for development to ensure that future development would only be allowed in areas that minimize risk to public health and safety and consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and the recommended Handbook Safety Zones. LUCE Policies and the adoption of the Airport Overlay Zone provide both a policy frame work and standards for development to ensure that development is consistent with densities /intensities, height, allowed uses, obstructions, noise and other safety standards to ensure that development is evaluated for consistency with the State Aeronautics Act. The Airport Overlay Zone took into account existing and proposed facilities identified in the Airport Master Plan (AMP) in establishing standards for development to ensure that future development would only be allowed in areas that minimize risk to public health and safety and are consistent with Handbook Safety Zones. 115. Analysis of Finding 38: (a) When compared to the ALUP that has been in place since 2002 (with minor revisions in 2004 and 2005), the provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would allow increased density of development in areas where aviation safety hazards exist and would permit a significantly greater density of noise- sensitive development in areas impacted by aviation noise. This is inconsistent with the legislative intent and purposes of the SAA, as set forth in PUC Section 21670. (b) The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would place future decisions concerning the compatibility of proposed land uses in the hands of the City Council, a group that has no demonstrated expertise or experience in aeronautics or airport operations, rather than with the duly- constituted ALUC. Placing the responsibility for such decisions to a body that lacks the specialized knowledge to fully understand all of the issues and factors involved is contrary to the purpose of the SAA to "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." Page 56 of 65 (c) As noted above with regard to Findings 35 through 37, it is inaccurate and misleading to describe the generic safety zones depicted in the Handbook as "recommended by the Handbook." The generic zones are provided only as an informational resource for use by ALUCs. The Handbook does not recommend that these generic zones be utilized for land use compatibility planning at any specific airport. (d) As also noted above, the use of the Handbook's generic safety zones does not even represent a common practice. Among 139 adopted California airport land use plans reviewed by an ALUC sub - committee, the generic zones were utilized without modification in only 6.5 %. (e) Finding 38 presents no factual evidence that the "policy framework and standards for development" contained in the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update would minimize the public's exposure to aviation noise and safety hazards as effectively as the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight policies established by the existing ALUP. (f) Based on the foregoing, Finding 38 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xxix. Finding 39 116. Finding 39 provides as follows: Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.060 contains Airspace Protection standards to reduce the risk of harm to people and property resulting from an aircraft accident by preventing the creation of land use features and prohibition of any activities that can pose hazards to the airspace used by aircraft in flight, consistent with recommendations beginning on Page 4 -34 of the Handbook beginning. Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR Part 77) and Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21659, the Airport Overlay Zone 17.57.060 ensures that no structures shall penetrate the airspace protection surfaces of the airport without a permit from the California Department of Transportation, or a determination by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the object does not constitute a hazard to air navigation or would not create an unsafe condition for air navigation. The LUCE and associated Airport Overlay Zone implement this guidance in compliance with Handbook Chapter 3. Building permits for such structures shall not be issued until a Determination of No Hazard has been issued by the FAA and any conditions in that Determination are met. Approvals for such projects may include the requirement for an avigation easement, marking or lighting of the structure, or modifications to the structure. 117. Analysis of Finding 39: Page 57 of 65 (a) The airspace protections of Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.060 are demonstrably weaker than those established by the current ALUP. Consequently, as compared to the ALUP, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates fail to minimize the public's exposure to aviation safety hazards. (b) Based on the foregoing, Finding 39 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. A. Finding 40 118. Finding 40 provides as follows: Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.060 further prohibits other activities that could pose a hazard to flight operations, including but not limited to: distracting lights, sources of dust, steam, heat or smoke, sources of electrical interference and features that attract birds. These standards are consistent with the Airspace Protection and Hazards to Flight guidelines beginning on Page 4 -34 of the Handbook and therefore provide for airspace protection that minimizes public health and safety consistent with the State Aeronautics Act. 119. Analysis of Finding 40: (a) The provisions of Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.060 related to hazards to aerial navigation are weaker than those established by the current ALUP. Consequently, as compared to the ALUP, the draft LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update fail to minimize the public's exposure to aviation safety hazards. (b) Based on the foregoing, Finding 40 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xli. Finding 41 120. Finding 41 provides as follows: Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.080 includes overflight standards and requires overflight notification for land uses near the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport and requires that all owners of property offered for -sale or for - lease within the Airport Overlay Zone to provide a disclosure prior to selling or leasing property in San Luis Obispo, disclosing that the property is routinely subject to overflights by aircraft and, as a result, residents may experience inconvenience, annoyance, or discomfort arising from the noise of such operations. This is consistent with guidelines beginning on Page 4 -13 of the handbook. Further, the disclosure reiterates the importance of public -use airports Page 58 of 65 to protection of the public interest of the people of the state of California indicates that the current volume of aircraft activity may increase in the future in response to San Luis Obispo County and City population and economic growth. Said Section 17.57.080 requires that all subsequent deeds conveying land within the Airport Overlay Zone shall contain a statement such a disclosure and that such disclosure shall be recorded and appear with the property deed. 121. Analysis of Finding 41: (a) The overflight provisions of Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.080 are weaker than those established by the current ALUP. Consequently, as compared to the ALUP, the draft LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates fail to minimize the public's exposure to aviation safety hazards. (b) Based on the foregoing, Finding 41 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. xlii. Finding 42 122. Finding 42 provides as follows: Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.090 requires that substantial open space be maintained in the Airport Overlay Zone area for emergency landings, pursuant to guidelines beginning on Page 4 -30 of the Handbook. Within the Airport Area Specific Plan area, the following open space is required for this purpose: 250 acres on the Chevron property with two areas specifically improved to meet ALUC standards; and a 300' wide strip adjacent to Buckley Road (24 acres) on the Avila Ranch site. Substantial open area is also required for this purpose within the Margarita Area Specific Plan area, at Laguna Lake Park; on the Brughelli property south of Buckley Road; and within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area, west of Highway 101 and south of Dalidio Drive. Section 17.57.090 further provides that where open space or conservation easements have been obtained and the topography supports it, the City shall not allow uses to be established that conflict with their availability to be used as a landing option in the event of an emergency. Where easements have yet to be obtained, the City shall incorporate the requirement for open land as part of the discretionary approval process: The amount of open space required within the Airport Overlay Zone is prescribed for each of the six (6) Airport Overlay sub - zones, consistent with the Handbook. 123. Analysis of Finding 42: (a) The current ALUP establishes adequate and appropriate open space within Page 59 of 65 the airport land use planning area through the mechanism of an Airport Compatible Open Space Plan (ACOS). The ACOS is developed by a local agency and reviewed and approved by the ALUC. The ALUP provides for additional density of development in most aviation safety areas on properties that are encompassed by an ACOS. Evaluation and approval of the ACOS ensures that the location, size, orientation, and topography of each open space is adequate to allow its ready identification by the pilot of an aircraft in distress and to provide a usable alternative to an off - airport landing in developed neighborhoods. (b) In. contrast, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update provide no mechanism for the review or evaluation of proposed open space areas by any group with expertise in aviation. This deficiency is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the SAA to "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." (c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 42 does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons described above, the ALUC has determined that the forty -two (42) Findings do not meet the requirements contained within PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and that they are, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule. cc: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Cordially, Roger Oxborrow, Chair Airport Land Use Commission Page 60 of 65 EXHIBIT A CALTRANS LETTER DATED JULY 18, 2014 Page 61 of 65 a. �.. � ... .y {. ►! a , . _..! ' ► a 1 Y:. s ► . ' � : s - � s ! at �+3Q�l�i+ t t, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS P.O. BOX 942874, MS -40 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274 -0001 PHONE (916) 654 -4959 FAX (916) 653 -9531 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov July 18, 2014 Ms. Kim Murry City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. Murry: m4 Serious drought. Help save water! Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements Update; SCH Number: 2013121019 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division), reviewed the above - referenced document with respect to airport- related noise and safety impacts and regional aviation land use planning issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Division has technical expertise in the areas of airport operations safety and airport land use compatibility. We are a funding agency for airport projects and we have permit authority for public -use and special -use airports and heliports. The following comments are offered for your consideration. The proposed project is for an update to the City of San Luis Obispo (City) General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE). In accordance with California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676 et seq., prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary established by the airport land use commission (ALUC), the local agency shall first refer the proposed action to the ALUC. If the ALUC determines that the proposed action is inconsistent with the airport land use compatibility plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the ALUC by a two - thirds vote of its governing body after it makes specific findings. At least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule the ALUC, the local agency's governing body shall provide to the ALUC and the Division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The Division reviews and comments on the specific findings a local government intends to use when proposing to overrule an ALUC. The Division specifically looks at the proposed findings to gauge their relationship to the overrule. Also, pursuant to the PUC 21670 et seq., findings should show evidence that the local agency is minimizing "...the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Ms. Kim Murry July 18, 2014 Page 2 General Plan and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency California Government Code Section 65302.3(a)(b) requires each local agency having jurisdiction over land uses within the ALUC's planning area to modify its general plan and any affected specific plans to be consistent with the ALUC's airport land use compatibility plan (ALUCP). A general plan doesn't need to be identical to the ALUCP to be considered consistent, however, general plans and elements must clearly demonstrate intent to adhere to ALUC policies to ensure compliance with compatibility criteria. Direct conflicts between mapped land use designations in a general plan and the ALUC criteria must be eliminated. A general plan needs to include (at the very least) policies committing the local agency to adopt compatibility criteria essential to ensuring that such conflicts will be avoided. The general plan also must acknowledge that until ALUC compatibility criteria are incorporated into the general plan, individual development projects within the airport influence area must be submitted to the ALUC for review. These provisions must be included in the general plan at a minimum for it to be considered consistent with the ALUCP. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the LUCE update does not indicate that the City will comply with Government Code Section 65302.3(a)(b) with regard to general plan and ALUCP consistency. With the LUCE updates, Caltrans' interpretation is that the City proposes to create their own new policies and programs for airport land use, noise and safety hazards instead of making the updates consistent with the adopted ALUCP, as required. Therefore, prior to the certification of this project DEIR, the City must overrule the ALUC if it decides the new land use and circulation element policies and programs are inconsistent with the ALUCP, as required by Government Code Section 65302.3(c). Caltrans also believes that if the City has no intension to comply with this section of the Government Code then it must be included in the range of reasonable alternatives to the project where its comparative merits can be evaluated. General Plan and ALUCP consistency is a feasible alternative that would go a long way towards honoring the public's expectation that local agencies are protecting them from new noise and safety impacts in the vicinity of airports. Even if the time and expense of an overrule is pursued by the City, the proposed airport programs and policies in the LUCE are so comprehensive that they have the net effect of amending the ALUCP and its policies, circumventing the ALUC's project review process, and nearly establishing a separate airport land use commission that would replace the County's. State law does not support such a wholesale transfer of airport land use compatibility planning to any another entity. State law specifically authorizes the establishment of ALUCs in a manner consistent with the law, and authorizes only them to formulate and adopt ALUCPs. California ALUC law recognizes that countywide land use planning near airports is regionally important and that ALUCs exist in order to balance competing local interests. The law can also prevent local economic interests from outweighing the broader statewide interest in maintaining public airports. Land uses that encroach on airports markedly increases the possibility of new noise and safety problems that can lead to political pressure to restrict or even close the facilities. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Ms. Kim Murry July 18, 2014 Page 3 Mitigation Measures for Impact LU -2; Impact N -4; and Impact HAZ -2 The LUCE update mitigation measures for land use compatibility (LU -2); airport noise exposure (N -4); and hazards (HAZ -2), state that implementation of the general plan's new airport area polices and programs will reduce these impacts to less than significant. These mitigation measures cannot be implemented by the City for purposes of reducing impacts to less than significant because here again, there has been no overrule of the ALUCP completed by the City. These impacts should still be considered significant environmental effects of the project. The DEIR does not adequately analyze the significant effects the project might cause by bringing future development and people into the airport planning area. Handbook Public Resources Code 21096, requires the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) be utilized as a resource in the preparation of environmental documents for projects within airport land use compatibility plan boundaries or if such a plan has not been adopted, within two nautical miles of an airport. The Handbook provides a "General Plan Consistency Checklist" in Table 5A and a "Possible Airport Combining Zone Components" in Table 5B. The Handbook is a resource that should be applied to all public use airports and is available on -line at: http: / /www.dot.ca.gov/hq/ planning / aeronaut / documents / alucp/ AirportLandUsePlanningHandbook .pdf Structural Hazards near Airports PUC Section 21659 prohibits structural hazards near airports. The planned height of buildings, antennas, and other objects should be checked with respect to Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 criteria if development is close to the airport, particularly if situated within the runway approach corridors. General plans must include policies restricting the heights of structures to protect airport airspace. To ensure compliance with FAR Part 77 "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace" submission of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460 -1) to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may be required. Form 7460 -1 is available on -line at https:Hoeaaa. faa.gov /oeaaa/extemal/portal.jsp and should be submitted electronically. PUC Section 21688 states that "no payments shall be made from the Aeronautics Account for expenditure on any airport or for the acquisition or development of any airport, if the department determines that the height restrictions around the airport are inadequate to provide reasonable assurance that the landing and taking off of aircraft at the airport will be conducted without obstruction or will be otherwise free from hazards." The airport-owner must have sufficient control over obstructions in the airspace in the vicinity of the airport to assure that height restrictions can be maintained. This control may be in the form of ownership of any land from which obstructions may rise, air navigation (avigation) easements to guarantee maintenance of restrictions, or height limitation or land use zoning which will prohibit obstructions which would violate the obstruction standards. The protection of airports from incompatible land use encroachment is vital to California's economic future. San Luis Obispo Airport is an economic asset that should be protected through effective airport land use compatibility planning and awareness. Although the need for "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Ms. Kim Murry July 18, 2014 Page 4 compatible and safe land uses near airports is both a local and State issue, airport land use commissions and airport land use compatibility plans are key to protecting an airport and the people residing and working in the vicinity of an airport. Consideration given to the issue of compatible land uses in the vicinity of an airport should help to relieve future conflicts between airports and their neighbors. These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Division with respect to airport- related noise, safety, and regional land use planning issues. We advise you to contact our District 5 office concerning surface transportation issues. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 654 -6223, or by email at philip_crimmins @dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, Original Signed by PHELIP CRIMMINS Aviation Environmental Specialist c: State Clearinghouse, San Luis Obispo County ALUC, San Luis Obispo Airport "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" EXHIBIT B ALUC NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY AND FINDINGS Page 62 of 65 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPO RT LAND USE COMMISSION Chairman: Roger Oxborrow Commissioners: William (Sill) Borgsm'iller Larry Cooper Dustin Leno Terry Orton Ellen Settle Gerrit Vanderziel NOTICE OF AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ACTION ALUC 2014 -004 HEARING DATE: JULY 16, 2014 RECOMMENDATION TO: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIIS.PO Derek Johnson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Hearing to consider a referral by the City of San Luis Obispo (City) for a determination of consistency or inconsistency regarding the proposed Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update of the City's General Plan, resulting In changes to policies and programs within Chapter 7 (Airport Area); Land Use Designations for certain properties that are within the Airport Planning Area (as defined by the adopted Airport Land Use Plan); the creation of an Airport Overlay Zone; and a referral for a determination of consistency or inconsistency regarding the City's Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment implementing the proposed LUCE Update. The land area affected by the LUCE Update that is located within the adopted Airport Planning area, as shown in Figure 3 (page 18 of the LUCE Update referral), The proposed project is located in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan - Airport Safety Areas S -1 a, 8 -1b, S -1 c, 8-2 and the Runway Protection Zone. On JULY 16, 2014, the Airport Land Use Commission determined the above referenced project inconsistent with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan, and is referred back to the City of San Luis Obispo, Derek Johnson, Community Development Director, based on the Recommendations and Findings 1 -17, in the Staff Report. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 781 -5708. Sincerely, Chris Macek, Secretary Airport Land Use Commission Cc: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager Enclosed: Staff report Recommendations and Findings 976 Osos Street, Rm 300, County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 STAFF REPORT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION DATE: JULY 16, 2014 TO: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) FROM: BILL ROBESON, COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING XZANDREA FOWLER, COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING REFERRING AGENCY: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPLICANT: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY FILE NUMBER: N/A PLANNER: DEREK JOHNSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: A REFERRAL BY THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (CITY) FOR A DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY OR INCONSISTENCY REGARDING THE PROPOSED LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT (LUCE) UPDATE OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, RESULTING IN CHANGES TO POLICIES AND PROGRAMS WITHIN CHAPTER 7 (AIRPORT AREA); LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES THAT ARE WITHIN THE AIRPORT PLANNING AREA (AS DEFINED BY THE ADOPTED AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN FOR THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT); THE CREATION OF AN AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE; AND A REFERRAL FOR A DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY OR INCONSISTENCY REGARDING THE CITY'S DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED LUCE UPDATE. LOCATION: THE LAND AREA AFFECTED BY THE LUCE UPDATE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ADOPTED AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN AREA, AS SHOWN IN FIGURE 3 (PAGE 18 OF THE LUCE REFERRAL). THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN - AIRPORT SAFETY AREAS S -1 a, S -1b, S -1c, S -2 AND THE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend a determination of inconsistency to the City of San Luis Obispo for proposed Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update of the City's General Plan Resulting in changes to policies and programs within Chapter 7 (Airport Area); Land Use Designations for certain properties that are within the Airport Planning Area (as defined by the adopted Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport); and the creation of an Airport Overlay Zone. Finding(s): 1. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the City's proposal to implement Land Use Element Update policies and programs through adoption of an Airport Overlay Zone in its zoning ordinance to address allowable uses and development standards for areas located within the Airport Planning Area is inconsistent with the land use policies outlined in the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. 2. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the City's proposed Airport Overlay Zone Airport Safety Zones are inconsistent with the existing ALUP Aviation Safety Areas, because the Airport Overlay Zone Airport Safety Zones proposed by the SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 City's draft LUCE would allow greater density of development in the airport planning area than permitted by the established ALUP Aviation Safety Areas. 3. The Airport Land Use Commission finds the City's proposed Airport Overlay Zone to be inconsistent with the purpose of the State Aeronautics Act to "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards ", as established by Public Utilities Code Section 21670 (a)(2). 4. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the City's proposal to allow new residential land uses within the projected 60dB CNEL noise contour, as stated in the new policy in Chapter 7, is inconsistent with existing ALUP noise sensitive land use policies. The 60dB CNEL criterion proposed to be the maximum acceptable level of airport noise for residential and other noise - sensitive land uses is louder than the 55dB CNEL standard established by the adopted ALUP. The Airport Land Use Commission also finds this provision to be inconsistent with the purpose of the State Aeronautics Act to "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards ", as established by Public Utilities Code Section 21670 (a)(2). 5. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the City's proposal to increase development within the established ALUP aviation safety areas, specifically those areas identified open space protection areas, as outlined in the City's Airport Compatibility Open Space Plan (ACOS), is inconsistent with the existing ALUP and the City's ACOS. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the implementation of this proposal could facilitate development on existing open space that is subject to aviation noise impacts and /or safety hazards; and this provision is inconsistent with the purpose of the State Aeronautics Act to "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards ", as established by Public Utilities Code Section 21670 (a) (2). 6. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the City's proposal to change the language within the existing Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), Section 7.2, that states "Development should be permitted only if it is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP)" to language as shown in the proposed new LUCE sections 7.14 and 7.15, that no longer require development to be consistent with the ALUP is inconsistent with existing ALUP policies. The City's proposal to exempt development from consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan is also contrary to the purpose of the State Aeronautics Act "to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports ", as established by Public Utilities Code Section 21670 (a)(1). 7. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the City's proposal to modify the requirement to record an avigation easement or a real estate disclosure document is inconsistent with the existing ALUP policies regarding avigation easements and real estate disclosures. 8. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the proposed development envisioned in the LUCE Update conflicts with the existing ALUP adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission, the agency with jurisdiction over the impacted project area. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the draft proposed LUCE would expose greater numbers of people to airport- related noise and safety SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 hazards, and that this provision is also inconsistent with the purpose of the State Aeronautics Act to "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards ", as established by Public Utilities Code Section 21670 (a)(2). 9. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the City's interpretation that adoption of the draft proposed LUCE, followed by an override of a determination of inconsistency made by the Airport Land Use Commission, will exempt all future adoptions, approvals, and amendments of general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, building regulations, and individual projects in the area within which the LUCE Update is applicable from further review by the Airport Land Use Commission, is incorrect. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that this anticipated course of action is inconsistent with the referral requirements established by Section 2.5.1.4 (page 4) and Section 7.1 (page 51) of the existing ALUP; and is contrary to the legislative intent of the State Aeronautics Act and inconsistent with the purposes of that legislation, as stated in Public Utilities Code Section 21670. 10. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that Chapter 17.57 of the draft proposed LUCE, together with the supporting Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Report (as prepared by Johnson Aviation and dated November 22, 2013) could be used to avoid compliance with the established Airport Land Use Compatibility policies as outlined in the ALUP. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that neither the Constitution of the State of California nor any statute enacted by the State Legislature confers upon local cities the authority to enact such Airport Land Use Compatibility policies. On the contrary, Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 (a) of the California Public Utilities Code specifically invest the power to formulate, adopt, and amend Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans in duly constituted Airport Land Use Commissions. Additionally, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has not been designated as "the agency that shall be responsible of [sic] the preparation, adoption, and amendment of each airport land use compatibility plan" by the board of supervisors of San Luis Obispo County and each affected city, as would be required by Sections 21670.1. (a) and 21670.1. (c)(2)(E) of the California Public Utilities Code. The Airport Land Use Commission, therefore, further finds that the adoption, by the City of San Luis Obispo, of Chapter 17.57 of the draft proposed LUCE and of the Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Report would be contrary to the legislative intent of the State Aeronautics Act and inconsistent with the purposes of that legislation, as stated in Public Utilities Code Section 21670. 11. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the adoption, by the City of San Luis Obispo, of Chapter 17.57 of the draft proposed LUCE and of the Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Report would represent an intrusion into the office and franchise of the Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County, in violation of Section 803 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Recommend a determination of inconsistency to the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the City's Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment implementing the proposed LUCE Update. Finding(s): 12. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that adoption of the City's Zoning Ordinance Amendment proposed for Chapter 17.22 (Use Regulation) and the draft new section Chapter 17.57 (Airport Overlay Zone) is inconsistent with the existing ALUP, because the proposal could present incompatibilities to the continued economic vitality and efficient operation of the Airport with respect to safety, noise, overflight or obstacle clearance by allowing incompatible and /or SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 sensitive receptor uses to be located in closer proximity and at higher densities than are currently allowable under the ALUP. 13. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the adoption of the City's proposed draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment that implements the LUCE Update proposing creation of an Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) to be inconsistent with the ALUP, because it does not provide a mechanism for referral review of proposed development and /or land uses for determination of consistency /inconsistency with the existing ALUP by the ALUC, the agency with jurisdiction over impacted project area. 14. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the adoption and implementation of the City's proposed Airport Overlay Zone Airport Safety Zones to be inconsistent with the existing ALUP Aviation Safety Areas. 16. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the adoption and implementation of the City's proposal to allow new residential land uses within the projected 60dB CNEL noise contour, as stated in the new language in the Draft Zoning Code Amendment Section 17.57.080, is inconsistent with existing ALUP noise sensitive land use policies, because it increases the potential development of noise - sensitive land uses in areas near the airport that are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. 16. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the adoption and implementation of the City's proposed language in the Draft Zoning Code Amendment Section 17.57.050 to increase development within the ALUP safety zones, specifically those areas identified open space protection areas, as outlined in the City's Airport Compatibility Open Space Plan (ACOS), is inconsistent with the existing ALUP and the City's ACOS. 17. The Airport Land Use Commission finds that the adoption and implementation of the City's proposed language in the Draft Zoning Code Amendment Section 17.57.040 regarding permissible land uses, maximum land use density (persons /acre), maximum residential density (dwelling units /acre), and minimum usable open space specified are inconsistent with applicable ALUP policies, because they allow uses, densities and minimum usable open space standards that exceed or are prohibited under the existing ALUP. Recommend review and provide written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the LUCE Update and Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment project during the public review period (ends on July 28, 2014). The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the LUCE Update and Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment identifies a Class I, significant and unavoidable impact because the adoption of the LUCE Update policies and Zoning Ordinance Amendment would have the potential to conflict with the Airport Land Use Plan adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission, the agency with jurisdiction over the proposed project area, for the reasons stated above in the Findings for a determination of inconsistency. The DEIR also acknowledges that the proposed LUCE Update and Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment have the potential to be found inconsistent with the existing Airport Land Use Plan by the Airport Land Use Commission. The potential conflicts are primarily associated with the conflicts in policies that exist to avoid or minimize potential safety and noise impacts associated with existing or future airport operations as described in the adopted Airport Master Plan and incorporated into the Airport Land Use Plan by reference. The Noise section of the DEIR should evaluate the potential impacts associated with single noise events, SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 since the LUCE Update and Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment could result in an increase of noise - sensitive receptors within areas that are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposal: The LUCE Update Project provides proposed changes to the City's existing Land Use Element and Circulation Elements of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan. The intent is to establish and implement a refined set of goals, policies, and programs for regulating development in the city, guiding the land use decision - making process, balance population growth with infrastructure availability, and to provide a true multi -modal transportation system that will guide the community over the next 20 years. The LUCE Update project primarily addresses infill opportunities, changes in legislation, and the need to update existing policy direction to reflect current values and requirements, the LUCE Update focuses on updated policy language and several areas of the City where "physical" land use changes are proposed. The proposed physical land use changes would apply only to specified areas that over the next 20 years may have the potential to accommodate changes in the land use type or intensity or are in need of circulation and infrastructure improvements. The LUCE Update proposes changes to existing policy and program language, and new policies and programs that specifically address inconsistencies between the proposed project and the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. The physical changes proposed in the Land Use Element Update for the most part are limited to changes in land use type or intensity in specific areas. These changes include proposed mixed use redevelopment of some sites, the infill of underutilized locations, and four sites that will require modified or new specific plans to address development parameters such as the location and type of land uses, infrastructure needs, and designs to address environmental constraints. These four sites include: Potential modification of the Margarita Area Specific Plan to allow increased residential densities; and new specific plans for the San Luis Ranch (formerly known as the Dalidio site), the Madonna property at Los Osos Valley Road, and the Avila Ranch. The location of known development proposals are shown in Figure 1. The policy and program updates proposed in the Airport Chapter of the Land Use Element reflect airport safety, noise, height and overflight considerations. Policies, programs, and Zoning Code implementation have been drafted to create an Airport Overlay Zone to codify airport compatibility criteria for areas subject to airport influence consistent with the requirements of California Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et.seq, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and other related federal and state requirements relating to airport land use compatibility planning. These include allowable uses and development standards such as density and intensity limitations, identification of prohibited uses, infill development, height limitations, and other hazards to flight, noise insulation, buyer awareness measures, airspace protection, nonconforming uses and reconstruction, and the process for airport compatibility criteria reviews by the City. The Circulation Element Update describes how the City Plans to provide for the transportation of people and materials within San Luis Obispo with connections to other areas in San Luis Obispo County and beyond. The proposed Circulation Element provides policy language to address a variety of circulation - related issues, including: traffic reduction; transit; encouraging the use of bicycles and walking; traffic management; future street network changes; truck, air and rail transportation; parking management in commercial areas and residential neighborhoods; and scenic roadways. Setting: Rural and Suburban areas of San Luis Obispo City /County Existing Uses: Agriculture, Airport Property, Business Park, Commercial, Industrial /Manufacturing, Office, open Space, Public Facilities, Recreation, Residential, Rural Lands, Rural Residential, and Suburban Residential Site Area: The area affected by the LUCE Update applies to all areas within the City and to some areas outside the City limits but within the City's Sphere of Influence (such as the San Luis Ranch area and the SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 Airport Area Specific Plan properties that have yet to be annexed). A Map of the City's planning area affected by the LUCE Update is shown in Figure 2A. In addition to the proposed changes to the General Plan designations for certain properties, the update includes proposed policy and program changes to Chapter 7 (Airport Area) in the Land Use Element. A map of the proposed Airport Overlay Zone is shown in Figure 2. The land area affected by the LUCE Update located within the adopted Airport Land Use Plan area is shown in Figure 3. DISCUSSION Airport Safety Zones: The application of the proposed airport safety zones for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport are reflected in the proposed Airport Overlay Zone are shown in Figure 4. The existing Airport Land Use Plan aviation safety areas compared to the proposed Airport Overlay Zone, and Specific and Area Plan areas are shown in Figure 4A. SAFETY ZONE COMPARISON - DENSITY LIMITATIONS TABLE CITY'S PROPOSAL: AIRPORT LAND USE Handbook/ Airport PLAN: Safety Zones Aviation Safety Areas AO -1 Res= 0 RPZ Res =O Runway Protection Non -Res =O Runway Protection Non -Res =O Zone Ag, roads, & parking Zone Ag, roads, & may are allowable parking may are allowable AO -2 Res =O S -1a Res =0.2 dwelling Inner Non -Res= 60 -80 Areas with operations at units /acre Approach /Departure persons /acre 500 feet above ground Non -Res= 50 -75 Zone within 250 feet of persons /acre extended centerlines AO -3 Res= Infill to average S -1 b Res =0.2 dwelling Inner Turning Zone of surrounding Maneuvering zone -glide units /acre density slopes Non -Res= 50 -75 Non -Res= 100 -150 persons /acre ersons /acre AO -4 Res = lnfill to average S -1c Res =0.2 dwelling Outer Approach/ of surrounding Within % nautical mile of units /acre Departure Zone density operations at less than Non -Res= 60 -120 Non - Res = 150 -200 500 feet above ground persons /acre persons/acre level AO -5 Res = lnfill to average S -1 b Res =0.2 dwelling Sideline Zone of surrounding Maneuvering zone -glide units /acre Non -Res= 100 -150 slopes Non -Res= 50 -75 persons/acre persons /acre AO -6 No limitations S -2 Res =12 -18 dwelling Traffic Pattern Zone Areas where operations units /acre are between 500 -1,000 Non - Res = 150 -180 feet above ground level _ersons /acre Noise: The relationship of the airport area affected by the LUCE Update to the projected noise contours for the 2023 Proposed Action in the adopted 2005 San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update using the latest INM model and the forecast provided in the adopted 2005 SBP SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 Master Plan Update and 2006 Environmental Assessment/ Environmental Impact Report shown in Figure 5. Chapter 7 of the Draft Land Use Element proposes to use the 60 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour as the threshold for new urban residential areas. REFERRING AGENCY OPTIONS: If the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) determines, as recommended, that the proposed actions being reviewed are inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), the City shall be notified and the San Luis Obispo City Council may, after a public hearing, overrule the ALUC if both of the following conditions are met: a. The City Council shall, at least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule the ALUC determination, provide the ALUC and the California Department of Transportation (Division of Aeronautics) with a copy of the proposed decision and findings, as required by State law, and shall include any comments from the ALUC and /or the Division of Aeronautics in the public record of any final decision to overrule the Commission. b. The City Council votes to overrule the ALUC's determination by at least a two- thirds vote of its members; and c. The City Council makes specific findings that the proposed Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update and Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment implementing the proposed LUCE Update are consistent with the purpose of Article 3.5 of the California Public Utilities Code, as stated in Section 21670, as follows: i. To provide for the orderly development of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport as a public use airport and the area surrounding the Airport so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems; and ii. To protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of the Airport and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the Airport to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. Such findings may not be adopted as a matter of opinion, but must be supported by substantial evidence. Should the City fail to override the ALUC determination by the above procedure, the ALUC may require that the City submit all subsequent actions, regulations, and permits to the ALUC for review. SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 FIGURES FOR REFERENCE: Figure 1 — Proposed Development Projects I �� 5ah iYFi: r�{,iil ?n 1 a 2 ` 2f1 1 11 26 ! !' t 10 w - u i a c2y os i inks I .,e ✓`N PP <� '1��'is s� t.. . _ ..i k' Rte: aD 9 .�- .. ,. I} .t14S,�S�S'A�ETI,! ' L ••IC LhHS RetrekCeV - Residekt�IProlect Isoitlana]Street9 ciM1,- Pla kArea 1. _� 14 11 � � ,,;,_ � PropasedAl�port0uertryake 27 ReY2kekceip- IUL[ed- UseProlect �s�rl4rcrtrAreaSpechl:PCjkArea AASP9okkdary 32 Rekiekceiv- comm erc131ProlectL I Margarita Area 5peMFlakAFe a 6.W,e.1 —w.,, e ii L ;r..a—w..a,..,.a ✓,,.M.� SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 Figure 2 — Proposed General Plan Airport Area f • ^R e� j� ,n t�ll+lJ Ywl 1 �— n r .Is )'w9W , 1AG.erCo dC+i 4.TE fI 6h-W l ;1AV.Tv2,, U n F. f? c o U city, Limits AASP Boundary Q PropgsedLSirpiytl:OvgijayZone 7 pS. d i Atl2s SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 Figure 2A — LUCE Sphere of Influence Planning Subarea SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 Figure 3 — Proposed General Plan Airport Area Compared to the existing ALUP Planning Area 1 tV.�l � T ••1 !• r� P .t YC Ilj L Fn 1!s ARSP 8v11c�[y ?. Prop4StdAEpodOUtFbFVZOO ,� �11�rflnitsarAfU ?Pt�irlrgRrea O y L011 ie',:kIhO.EO..UNEP -OC I1 ., USES, 1�'A F D- GEBCOyllk�i$A6 -kTC 05 0 t Illpi SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 Figure 4 — Proposed Airport Overlay Zone with Handbook Safety Zones 0. *, IN, e LU ° ca � 1 / +` , 1��, � ♦ 0.b � \ \\ �� � m 17 . . a 0 EL 0 CO SM IL Fk�, ^_ Q L6 ` co C5 _ Cf) CU E tv r� SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 Figure 4A — Proposed Airport Overlay Zone with Specific and Area Plan areas SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 Figure 5 — Airport Overlay Zone with Projected Noise Contours SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 Figure 6 — ALUP Airport Noise Contours qj a • o , fe M �� �•, few _ - ��y --� { -4i i 8 8 8 ig la� 6 4 a SLO CITY LUCE UPDATE AND DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Inconsistency Determination ALUC July 16, 2014 Figure 7 — ALUP Airport Aviation Safety Areas 0 1 a i 1 L a �. 4 V 6 EXHIBIT C CITY NOTICE OF INTENT TO OVERRULE Page 63 of 65 1 Q Community Development 919 Palm Street. San Lull 01]#D, CA 913401 ,3218 90 x.791, 7170 s1oriIV caul August 20, 2014 Airport Land Use Commission C/O Bill Robeson, liaison Department of Planning and Building County Government Center San Luis Obispo CA 93408 SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Overrule Dear Commissioners: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FXHli '! I DO i -CST REMOVE FROM FILE As you know, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) determined on July 16, 2014 that the City's proposed Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update is inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The City is in receipt of the ALUC's Notice of Action, with findings in support of the determination of inconsistency. Thus, the City's proposed decision to approve the LUCE Update and implementing zoning regulations will require City Council adoption of findings overruling the ALUC determination. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), the City must provide the ALUC and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics with notice of the proposed decision and draft findings at least 45 days prior to the adoption of such findings and /or decision to overrule. This letter is intended to initiate that 45 -clay notice period. The City understands that the ALUC and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics have 30 days from receipt of this notice to make comments on the City's proposed decision and draft findings. Any comments received during this 30 -day period will be forwarded to the City Council and included in the public record of any final decision to overrule. Thank you for your participation and assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (805) 781 -7187. Sincerely, D r Director Copy to: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, MS 40 P. O. Box 942874, Sacramento, CA 94274 -0001 San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Eric: Council adopted resolution and findings RESOLUTION NO. 10552 (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE WITH THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) AND CALTRANS (DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS) DRAFT FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT (LUCE) UPDATE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES SET FORTH IN PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 21670 AND THAT THE CITY THEREFORE INTENDS TO OVERRULE THE ALUC'S DETERMINATION THAT THE LUCE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN (ALUP) WHEREAS, the City was awarded a Strategic Growth Council Grant and the work scope authorized by Council includes grant -focus items: • Community input regarding the physical, social, economic, cultural and environmental character of the City in order to develop a vision of San Luis Obispo through 2035. • A comprehensive guide for decision - making based on land use, design, circulation and access, sustainability and the preservation of the quality of life in the community. • Policies that balance development and conservation to preserve the City's natural beauty, unique character and heritage while supporting housing opportunities, a vibrant economy and addressing disadvantaged communities. • Evaluate consistency with the Regional Blueprint and policies that guide development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy in collaboration with SLOCOG. • Opportunities to create Complete Streets /neighborhoods and develop programs to achieve them. • Identify areas appropriate for residential infill and densification. • Identify the circulation system that is needed to appropriately balance the community's values and the need for growth • Identify ways to achieve more affordable housing. • Promote energy efficiency & conservation and incorporate Climate Action Plan strategies. • Identify transit opportunities that may be enhanced to accommodate Transit Oriented Developments (TOD). • Identify programs to help migrate to transportation modes other than the single occupant vehicle. • Identify healthy food locations and opportunities for pedestrian and bike access. WHEREAS, the City desires to update its General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) with policies to guide development based on logical infill development R 10552 Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) Page 2 patterns that discourage urban sprawl and provide for safe, high quality residential neighborhoods and supportive amenities and services; and WHEREAS, the policies and programs proposed in the LUCE Update reflect the sentiment of the community as a whole. Since the LUCE Update process was initiated in January 2012, there have been 34 LUCE Task Force (TF -LUCE) meetings; 8 Planning Commission hearings and 11 City Council hearings held to refine the LUCE project description and ensure that its policies and programs reflect the goals and dcsires of the community. These efforts were informed by input from a community -wide survey and public workshops held during this time; and WHEREAS, the area where most of the future growth opportunities lie is in the southern part of San Luis Obispo's Sphere of Influence; and WHEREAS, the City retained a qualified airport land use compatibility consultant to prepare an Airport Land Use Compatibility Report to ensure that the proposed physical growth opportunities and policies and programs contained in the LUCE Update are in compliance with and consistent with Article 3.5 of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670, the respective California Public Utilities Code sections and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook; and WHEREAS, the LUCE Update does not impact the public health, welfare and safety or airport operations; and WHEREAS, the Airport has an FAA - approved Master Plan (AMP) and Airport Layout Plan (ALP); and WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for the County has adopted and approved an Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the Airport; and WHEREAS, Since 2012, the City has met extensively with the ALUC and encouraged the ALUC to update the ALUP and has provided extensive technical and policy comments to the ALUC along with offers of modern, accurate GIS mapping, FAA - required noise model expertise and other related services in anticipation of the City's long projected timeline for completion of its LUCE Update process; and WHEREAS, said ALUP is outdated and is not consistent with the AMP and ALP for the Airport and contains maps and policies that are ambiguous and not based on facts and supported by substantial evidence; and WHEREAS, the effort to provide information to the ALUC and meet with them was intended to reconcile and resolve technical issues that have been discussed between the ALUC and the City dating back to early 2002; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676, the City referred the draft LUCE Update to the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on June Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) Page 3 13, 2014 for a determination as to whether the draft LUCE Update is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP); and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2014, the ALUC conducted a public hearing and determined that the draft LUCE Update is not consistent with the ALUP with regard to the types and densities of development that could occur within the airport area; and WHEREAS, further pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676, the City may after a public hearing on the matter propose to overrule the ALUC determination by a two- thirds vote of the City Council if the City Council makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes set forth in Section 21670 of the California Public Utilities Code; and WHEREAS, prior to overruling the ALUC's determination, the City must provide the ALUC and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics with a copy of the Council's intent to overrule and draft findings at least 45 days prior to a final decision to overrule, pursuant to Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code; and WHEREAS, to promote the land uses and policies contained within the LUCE Update, staff seeks authorization from Council to notify the ALUC and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics of the City's intent to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency and to provide ALUC and Caltrans with the opportunity to provide comments on the draft findings; and WHEREAS, any comments timely received will be duly considered and will be included in the final record of decision on any overrule action by Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council intends to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission's findings of inconsistency based on the findings contained in Exhibit A hereto, and hereby directs staff to begin the required noticing in preparation of a final decision to overrule the ALUC's inconsistency determination regarding the LUCE Update. SECTION 2. The City Council declares that should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Upon motion of vice Mayor Christianson , seconded by Council Member Ashbaugh , and on the following roll call vote: Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) Page 4 AYES: Council. Member Ashbaugh, Vice Mayor Christianson, Mayor Marx NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Council Members Carpenter, smith The rore,going resolution was adopted this: 19`" day of August 2014. ATTEST: n ony J. M iu, M City Clerk APPROVED A $A{Q FORM: 'Christine Dietrick ity Attorney Mayor 1 Marx I, ANTHONY J. MEDIA, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT TO BE A FULL, TRU ND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL, N N FILE iN I+AY OFFICE. I A ONY J. M IA. CI K ATE: c• Z w- ?i1 Y i 3 7 i3 lT 10 )'Pii #a 1' t'' S bl1 .I ) .�L1.' �r5rd� t . ^•1f1;] iIJA.:) -}ti %TAT? .�Cili?'.Li, NF? t z! a Aul S_ q 10 Y .tf•i s tiLIi7:"l+ 71'..`!.•} ._JUl A 32 nr �.1nNS'�rt>cl.I �7tiOe?a''Cl� :.2AMO GOB: -74UF' titers r:e! ull 14 7 V*D siWill M Oka � iirir+3v �ti �� :i.�`•',"ti�,'1i'4fitirliuiA .J Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) Page 5 Exhibit "A" Draft Findings for the City of San Luis Obispo's Intent to Overrule the Airport Land Use Commission's Determination that the Draft Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update and associated Implementation including creation of Airport Overlay Zoning Regulations are Inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan The policies and programs of the draft LUCE Update, including the provisions of the Airport Overlay Zoning regulations, are based on the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Update, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), and Airport Land Use Compatibility Report (Compatibility Report) prepared by Johnson Aviation dated August 11, 2014. The Compatibility Report, which contains the supporting technical analysis and documents precisely how the draft LUCE Update complies with the State Aeronautics Act (SAA), as set forth in Division 9 (Aviation) of the Public Utilities Code (PUC), and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook), is incorporated herein by reference. 2. As evidenced by the Compatibility Report, the Airport- related policies and programs contained in the Draft Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) and implementing Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) zoning regulations provide adequate measures to "protect public health, safety and welfare" and "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards" near the Airport "to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670(a)(2). 3. Historically, the City deferred to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and County - adopted Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for airport land use compatibility determinations. In recent years, however, errors and omissions within the ALUP have become apparent. The City now considers the ALUP to be flawed and outdated, with policies that are not based on facts. The ALUP does not comply with the public health and safety requirements of the State Aeronautics Act 4. The "Airport Planning Area" defined within the Existing ALUP is identical to the planning area identified in the ALUP as originally adopted in 1977. In 37 years, the safety zones in this Existing ALUP have not been updated. 5. Safety zones designated in the existing ALUP are not accurately aligned with the San Luis Obispo Airport runways and they do not reflect runway length changes constructed in recent years and depicted on the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). 6. State law requires that ALUPs be consistent with the Airport Master Plan (AMP), the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and the FAA - approved Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). The existing ALUP is not consistent with the AMP, the ALP or the TAF. Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) Page 6 Exhibit "A" 7. ALUCs are not empowered to determine what the future airfield configuration, airport role, or activity levels will be. State statutes direct that an ALUCP must be based upon an Airport Master Plan and FAA- approved Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). 8. While planners are not mandated to use the sample zones provided in the Handbook, they are mandated to create zones that have easily definable geometric shapes, are as compact as possible, have a distinct progression in the degree of risk represented, and are limited to a realistic number (five or six should be adequate in most cases). The ALUP's safety zones require complex trigonometry to define, show an increasing geographic area of risk at further distances from the airport, and contain zones that are not described by the Handbook and that are not reflective of Handbook Table 3A adjustment factors. 9. Since January 2012, the City of San Luis Obispo has encouraged the ALUC to update the ALUP for consistency with the SAA, PUC and Handbook in an open and collaborative manner based on factual information and realistic airport operations scenarios. Such an update has not occurred. 10. The policies and programs set forth in the proposed LUCE Update and implementing Airport Overlay Zone are based upon the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and are consistent with the guidelines recommended by Caltrans to specifically fulfill the purposes of Article 3.5 of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. 11. The City went through an extensive effort to ensure that the City's LUCE policies: (1) are consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, as stated in Section 21670: (2) are consistent with the Caltrans Handbook's policies and recommendations relating to safety, overflight, airspace protection and noise; and (3) that the LUCE policies do not adversely impact the public health, welfare and safety or airport operations. All of the policies in the LUCE are based on substantial evidence provided in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report included as a technical appendix to the LUCE Update EIR and incorporated by reference. This report includes a careful examination of the existing and proposed airport facilities, operations, and local procedures; weather, topography, aircraft accidents and incidents. The report also includes a careful examination of the County - approved Airport Master Plan, FAA- approved Airport Layout Plan and application of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 obstruction analysis. The report also includes recommendations for LUCE policies consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and guidelines provided in the Caltrans Handbook. Therefore, the LUCE policies and programs and associated implementation through creation of an Airport Overlay Zone is based on substantial evidence and is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670, to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards and to not impact public health, welfare and safety or existing and future airport operations. 12. The draft LUCE Update and implementing Airport Overlay Zoning regulations incorporate and are fully consistent with the current Caltrans Handbook standards for addressing safety, noise, overflight and airspace protection and also include accurate Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) Page 7 Exhibit "A" Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping, current FAA operations and planning standards and significant airport planning information from the County- adopted Airport Master Plan and FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan. The City has also developed complete technical airport operational information through its Airport Land Use Compatibility Report fully considering FAA - regulated and approved operations and procedures. San Luis Obispo Regional Airport supports all- weather General Aviation operations and scheduled commercial passenger service with no deviations due to topography or weather that limit these operations or require adjustments to Caltrans Handbook safety zones. The City applied the Caltrans Handbook density and intensity of use standards to each proposed Airport Overlay Zone to ensure safety and compatibility of existing and proposed land uses and to prevent future development of incompatible land uses. 13. Airport Safety policies and programs contained in the LUCE Update are consistent with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines (See Handbook, Chapter 3, Page 3 -15 through 3 -27; Chapter 4, Pages 4 -17 through 4 -34) and substantiated by the FAA - approved San Luis Obispo County Airport Master Plan activity forecasts because policies and programs address development standards to regulate development intensity, density, and prohibited uses; infill development standards, height limitations and other hazards to flight; noise, buyer awareness measures, avigation easements; airspace obstruction; open land; non - conforming uses and reconstruction; and City review. These policies and programs meet the guidance and direction provided in sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines. The FAA - approved Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity is the best reasonably foreseeable projection of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for long -term safety planning purposes (See Handbook, Pages 3 -7 through 3 -8). Public Utility Code §21675(a) requires land use compatibility plans to be based on the Airport Master Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. 14. The City's LUCE is consistent with the overall goal of the State Aeronautics Act to minimize incompatible land uses within the vicinity of the Airport. The LUCE does not adversely impact public health, welfare and safety or airport operations because it includes measures to reduce or eliminate any potentially significant noise or safety impacts, as documented in the Compatibility Report and LUCE Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) through the implementation of a combination of LUCE policies and the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ). The Caltrans Handbook goes further to delineate the characteristics of "ideal" safety zones such as "easily definable geometric shapes," a limited number of five or six zones, a distinct progression in the degree of safety risk further from the runway and "each zone should be as compact as possible." The City's proposed LUCE is intended to accomplish this ideal by incorporating those guidelines. Furthermore, the ALUP noise contours are inconsistent with the verified and validated noise contours from the County- approved Airport Master Plan EIR using the FAA's latest version of the Integrated Noise Model (INM). 15. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670(a)(b), the Policies and Programs contained in the Draft LUCE Update ensure the orderly expansion of the airport and Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) Exhibit "A" Page 8 include land use controls that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the airport to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. 16. The Draft LUCE update and implementing Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ), provide for a progression of land use density and intensity based on the degree of reduced noise and safety risk with distance away from the runways, consistent with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines. The FAA- approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) dated November 4, 2010 depicts the ultimate planned development of SBP facilities, including runways and associated Runway Protection Zones. The Draft LUCE update and associated implementation regulations apply noise restrictions based on the FAA - approved Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity based upon a 20 year planning horizon. The FAA - approved Master Plan forecast is the best reasonably foreseeable projection of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for long -term noise planning purposes. 17. Policies and programs contained in the City's LUCE Update and implementing zoning regulations do not replace or usurp the ALUC's authority because the LUCE policies and programs only apply within the city limits. In addition, all future projects involving a legislative act, such as a general plan amendment, specific plan or zone change, would be referred to the ALUC for an ALUP consistency determination as reflected in the implementing Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.030(C). 18. The ALUP contains land use criteria for a Maneuvering Zone and S 1 -C Zone that have no equivalent in the Handbook Guidelines, and an S -2 Zone that is larger in size and contains unduly restrictive use limitations compared to that recommended by the Handbook guidelines (See Handbook, Page 3 -15 through Page 3 -16), yet no facts or data supporting the configuration or the use limitations are available. Such unnecessary and unjustified restrictions may constitute a `take' and it is not in the community's interest to unnecessarily limit the City's ability to accommodate desired infill growth. Therefore, the City will opt to exercise its rights under Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) to overrule the ALUC with regard to this matter. The City's overrule is supported by the fact that the combination of LUCE policies and the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) provide standards for development that protect public health and safety consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as evidenced in the analysis shown in the Airport Compatibility Report, and are consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and protect public health and safety consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as evidenced in the analysis shown in the Airport Compatibility Report incorporated by reference. The policies, programs and implementation of the LUCE include standards that address development intensity, density, and prohibited uses; infill development standards, height limitations and other hazards to flight; noise, buyer awareness measures, avigation easements; airspace obstruction; open land; non - conforming uses and reconstruction; and City review. The Compatibility Report section 4.3 evaluated adjustment factors and determined that no safety zone adjustments are required to California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook safety zone configurations for SBP. Evaluation and recommendations listed in Section 9 of the Compatibility Report indicate that compliance Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) Page 9 Exhibit "A" with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidance for uses appropriate to each safety zone meets the State Aeronautics Act §21674.7(b) direction to discourage incompatible land uses around the airport. 19. The planned facilities identified in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan, and on the FAA - approved ALP accommodate forecast demand. However, as noted in the SBP Master Plan Update, "the cost - effective, efficient, and orderly development of an airport should rely more upon actual demand at an airport than on a time -based forecast figure" " (See Chapter 5 of the Airport Compatibility Report for a complete discussion of and validation of the AMP Forecast for use as intended under the PUC Section 21675, "that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years. ". This is why the planning of facilities at SBP is based on milestones of short, intermediate, and long term aviation activity versus actual years even though the Master Plan forecast covered 20 years from when it was published in 2004. The planning of facilities at SBP incorporates milestones of short, intermediate, and long term aviation activity indicate when facilities will respond to aviation activity in addition to the anticipated forecast horizon. 20. The recession that began in 2007 had a great impact on air travel. SBP lost nearly 34% of its enplanements as carriers responded to the rising price of oil, declining demand and realigned air service networks. Actual annual aviation activity at SBP has been significantly lower than the SBP Master Plan forecasts. Even though the SBP Master Plan Update forecast is based on aggressive growth at SBP, and trends that are not in line with existing activity and the FAA forecast, facilities called for in the Master Plan it support the ultimate physical development of the Airport, which is shown in the County- adopted Master Plan and on the FAA- approved ALP. The preferred use of the SBP Master Plan Update forecast is consistent with the Handbook guidance that, "[e]ven when the forecasts and contours in a master plan do not extend at least 20 years into the future, information contained about the intended role and future physical characteristics of the airport is needed for compatibility planning (See Handbook, Pages 3 -7, 3 -8)." Actual annual aviation activity at SBP was 66% lower than the SBP Master Plan forecast for 2012, and this gap grew larger in 2013 with even lower SBP aircraft operations. Thus, the Master Plan forecast and associated noise contours form a conservative base of information to use when considering long term compatibility of land uses through the LUCE update. The proposed land uses and policies do not conflict with the AMP. 21. The SBP Master Plan Update forecast greatly exceeds the current actual operations activity as well as the FAA's Terminal Area Forecast of operations that extends out to 2040. As per FAA AC 150 /5070 -613, Airport Master Plans, master plan forecasts for operations, based aircraft, and enplanements are considered to be consistent with the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) if they differ by less than 10 percent in the 5 -year forecast and 15 percent in the 10 -year period for "other commercial service airports" like SBP. The current Master Plan for SBP differs more than 10% in the 5 -year forecast and 15% in the 10 -year forecast which indicates that the operational projections in the Master Plan are more aggressive than likely and may be used as a very long term conservative projection of potential aircraft operational noise. Thus, the Master Plan forecast and Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) Page 10 Exhibit "A" associated noise contours form a conservative base of information to use when considering long term compatibility of land uses through the LUCE update. (See Handbook, Pages 3 -7, 3 -8). Findings that LUCE Polices and Implementing Airport Overlays Zone AQZ Regulations Provide Adequate Protection for Noise, Safety, Overflight and Airspace Protection Noise 22. The City is concerned that limiting new residential and other noise sensitive uses to areas outside the 55 dB CNEL noise contour may be subject to legal challenge as a taking of property without just compensation in light of FAA and Caltrans' guidelines with respect to land use compatibility and the lack of data supporting the application of the 55 dB standard to an urban area such as San Luis Obispo. The LUCE update relies on the approved Airport Master Plan and associated EIR to identify the noise contours applicable to the community of San Luis Obispo. Section 6.3 of the Compatibility Report uses the Airport Master Plan operational forecasts to evaluate the existing and projected noise environment for the community. The LUCE update and implementation through the Airport Overlay Zone apply the 60dB CNEL contour as the maximum acceptable noise exposure for new residential uses. This complies with Table 4B in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook which indicates that 60 dB is suitable for new development around most airports and that it is particularly appropriate in mild climates where windows are often open. 23. Despite a Public Records Act request of the ALUC and direct outreach to the original consultant noted on Figures 1 and 2 in the existing ALUP, the ALUC has been unable to produce the factual basis for the noise analysis and related technical assumptions (projected numbers of operations, types of aircraft, time of day of operations) used to create the noise contours used in the Existing ALUP. Noise contours shown in Figure 1 of the ALUP indicate contours are based on a hypothetical maximum runway capacity which is inconsistent with Public Utility Code §21675(a) which requires that the ALUP be based upon the most recent Airport Master Plan. Therefore, requiring compatibility of the LUCE update and associated Airport Overlay Zone implementation to the ALUP noise contours is not appropriate. The LUCE update and associated implementation relies on the approved Airport Master Plan and associated EIR aircraft operations forecast noise contours as those applicable to the community of San Luis Obispo in compliance with the Public Utilities Code §21675(a) and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Chapters 3 and 4. 24. Table 413, Noise Compatibility Criteria Alternatives (New Residential Land Uses) from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook establishes the three CNEL values commonly used as the limit for acceptable residential noise exposure and their applicability. On Page 4 -7, the Handbook states that areas with a noise level of 60 dB CNEL are "suitable for new residential development around most airports" and "particularly appropriate in mild climates where windows are often open" Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) Page 11 Exhibit "A" 25. The City's proposed airport noise standard for new residential uses is 60 dB CNEL, consistent with the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook recommendations for urban areas as shown on page 4 -8 in Figure 4A. The Handbook shows 60 dB CNEL as a typical setting for urban low- density residential uses. Further, the City's proposed noise standard is based upon verified and validated noise contours from the County- approved Airport Master Plan EIR using the FAA's latest version of the Integrated Noise Model (INM). ) (See Airport Compatibility Report Section 6, Airport Noise, Pages 42 -52). 26. The aircraft noise analysis prepared for the Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Report is documented in Chapter 5 of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The assumptions regarding aircraft operations amounts, types, spatial and temporal distribution is reflected in Figure 5.1 -6 of the AMP EIR. The AMP EIR operations assumptions were entered into the Integrated Noise Model version 7.Od and generated noise contours that were compared to the AMP EIR on page 52 of the Compatibility Report. The resultant noise contours confirmed the AMP EIR information as an accurate mapping of the long term noise impact of the airport's aviation activity that is tied to the ultimate facilities development depicted in the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan. The City's use of the Airport Master Plan noise contours for purposes of development of its LUCE Update noise contours and the application of a 60 dB CNEL exterior noise standard and 45 dB CNEL interior noise standard for new residential uses is appropriate and is consistent with FAA and State aircraft noise planning standards (Handbook, Page 4-46). 27. The aircraft noise analysis prepared for the SBP Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA/EIR provides an accurate mapping (See Airport Compatibility Report, Pages 51 -52) of the long term noise impact of the Airport's aviation activity that is tied to the ultimate facilities development depicted in the FAA - approved ALP. The City's use of the Airport Master Plan noise contours for purposes of development of its LUCE Update noise contours and the application of a 60 dB CNEL exterior noise standard and 45 dB CNEL interior noise standard for new residential uses is appropriate and is consistent with FAA and State aircraft noise planning standards (Handbook, Page 4-46). The SBP EA/EIR found no existing or planned noise impact on the surrounding community as a result of the full build out of the Airport. 28. The ALUP noise contours are not based on the SBP Master Plan forecast operations but rather on a theoretical "capacity" of the runways with no connection to the underlying demand or proven usage characteristics of the runways, resulting in an unrealistic and vastly over - stated noise impact. The City's LUCE is appropriately based on the SBP Master Plan forecast operations with all of the facts and assumptions clearly available in the SBP EA/EIR for objective review. The ALUC does not present the underlying assumptions or technical facts used to create the noise contours provided in the ALUP, and have not been able to make this information available for review. The LUCE update and associated implementation relies on the approved Airport Master Plan and associated EIR aircraft operations forecast noise contours as those applicable to the community of San Luis Obispo in compliance with the Public Utilities Code §21675(a) and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Chapters 3 and 4. Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) Page 12 Exhibit "A" 29. Seventy -five percent of all aircraft noise complaints collected by County Airport officials over the last five years are generated by three individuals as provided in a report by the ALUC to the City of San Luis Obispo. 30. The San Luis Obispo Regional Airport is not included in the list of ten "Noise Problem" Airports in California as defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 5000, et seq. 31. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors have not applied to the State to have SBP defined as a "Noise Problem" Airport in California as defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 5000 et seq. Safety 32. Review processes and height restrictions supported through the LUCE and Airport Overlay Zone require compliance with FAA Part 77 criteria. Therefore, the Draft LUCE update and associated implementation through an Airport Overlay Zone which reflect the Handbook guidance for the most recent Airport Master Plan will not impact the Airport's ability to qualify for payments from the Aeronautics Account to support airport development as stated in PUC § 21659. 33. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook uses Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) and certain Part 77 surfaces to help delineate recommended airspace protection zones around airports. The Draft LUCE update and associated implementation through an Airport Overlay Zone incorporate compliance with Part 77 surfaces and other requirements to address potential obstructions near the airport. Public Utilities Code §21403(c) provides the right of aircraft to safe access to public airports including the right of flight within the zone of approach without hazard. This zone of approach shall conform to Part 77 regulations which are incorporated into the LUCE and Airport Overlay Zone. 34. Safety provisions to address aircraft in distress as specified in the Handbook's "Guidelines for Extent of Open Land Near Airports" criteria (beginning on Page 4 -31 of the Handbook) is addressed in the Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.050. This section calls out open land areas already planned for and secured in addition to open land objectives for the overlay zones that comply with those listed on page 4 -31 and 32 of the Handbook. 35. The instrument procedures at SBP are found in the Airport Master Plan beginning on Page 1 -14 provide straight -in final approaches to Runway 11 and Runway 29 with vertical guidance for pilots flying in instrument weather conditions creating the safest approach possible and avoiding the need to use circling approaches (See Airport Land Use Compatibility Report, Page 27 and Handbook, Page 3 -22). Since no adjustments to flight routes have been identified for the airport, the configuration and use limitations associated with the Handbook- defined safety zones is adequate for the San Luis Obispo Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) Page 13 Exhibit "A" County Regional Airport. Airport Overlay Zone Chapter 17.57 identifies overlay zones 1- 6 and associated land use standards that are consistent with Chapter 4 of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook safety zones 1 -6 and land use limitations. 36. The historical accident data at SBP is insufficient to draw conclusions about risk of accidents in the future based on frequency and consequence. However, the Handbook aggregates all data regarding accidents and incidents and integrates this data into the recommended safety zones. Each Handbook - identified safety zone represents a relatively uniform risk level that is distinct from the other zones based upon mathematical analysis of the accident location data. Appendix E of the 2011 Handbook contains updated aircraft accident information that was compared to 2002 data in order to determine if changes to the Handbook safety zones were warranted. As documented on page 3 -16 of the Handbook, evidence from analysis of the new data was insufficient to conclude that geographic distribution of accidents had significantly changed and therefore the basis for the suggested zones had not changed. The Draft LUCE update and associated implementation through an Airport Overlay Zone applies use limitations within boundaries recommended by the Handbook (See Handbook, Pages 4 -20 through 4 -25) and identifies overlay zones 1 -6 and associated land use standards that are consistent with Chapter 4 of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook safety zones 1 -6 and associated land use limitations. 37. An analysis of the Handbook Safety Zone Adjustment Factors was completed for SBP in section 4.3 of the Compatibility Report and the findings indicate that no safety zone adjustments from those recommended by the Handbook are required (See Airport Land Use Compatibility Report, Pages 33 -34). 38. LUCE Policies and the adoption of the Airport Overlay Zone provide both a policy frame work and standards for development to ensure that development is consistent with allowable densities, height limitation, allowable uses, and other safety standards to ensure that development is evaluated for consistency with the State Aeronautics' Act. The Airport Overlay Zone took into account existing and proposed facilities identified in the Airport Master Plan (AMP) in establishing standards for development to ensure that future development would only be allowed in areas that minimize risk to public health and safety and consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and the recommended Handbook Safety Zones. LUCE Policies and the adoption of the Airport Overlay Zone provide both a policy frame work and standards for development to ensure that development is consistent with densities /intensities, height, allowed uses, obstructions, noise and other safety standards to ensure that development is evaluated for consistency with the State Aeronautics' Act. The Airport Overlay Zone took into account existing and proposed facilities identified in the Airport Master Plan (AMP) in establishing standards for development to ensure that future development would only be allowed in areas that minimize risk to public health and safety and are consistent with Handbook Safety Zones. Airspace Protection Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) Page 14 Exhibit "A" 39. Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.060 contains Airspace Protection standards to reduce the risk of harm to people and property resulting from an aircraft accident by preventing the creation of land use features and prohibition of any activities that can pose hazards to the airspace used by aircraft in flight, consistent with recommendations beginning on Page 4 -34 of the Handbook beginning. Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR Part 77) and Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21659, the Airport- Overlay Zone 17.57.060 ensures that no structures shall penetrate the airspace protection surfaces of the airport without a permit from the California Department of Transportation, or a determination by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the object does not constitute a hazard to air navigation or would not create an unsafe condition for air navigation. The LUCE and associated Airport Overlay Zone implement this guidance in compliance with Handbook Chapter 3. Building permits for such structures shall not be issued until a Determination of No Hazard has been issued by the FAA and any conditions in that Determination are met. Approvals for such projects may include the requirement for an avigation easement, marking or lighting of the structure, or modifications to the structure. 40. Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.060 further prohibits other activities that could pose a hazard to flight operations, including but not limited to: distracting lights, sources of dust, steam, heat or smoke, sources of electrical interference and features that attract birds. These standards are consistent with the Airspace Protection and Hazards to Flight guidelines beginning on Page 4 -34 of the Handbook and therefore provide for airspace protection that minimizes public health and safety consistent with the State Aeronautics Act. Overflight 41. Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.080 includes overflight standards and requires overflight notification for land uses near the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport and requires that all owners of property offered for -sale or for -lease within the Airport Overlay Zone to provide a disclosure prior to selling or leasing property in San Luis Obispo, disclosing that the property is routinely subject to overflights by aircraft and, as a result, residents may experience inconvenience, annoyance, or discomfort arising from the noise of such operations. This is consistent with guidelines beginning on Page 4 -13 of the handbook. Further, the disclosure reiterates the importance of public -use airports to protection of the public interest of the people of the state of California indicates that the current volume of aircraft activity may increase in the future in response to San Luis Obispo County and City population and economic growth. Said Section 17.57.080 requires that all subsequent deeds conveying land within the Airport Overlay Zone shall contain a statement such a disclosure and that such disclosure shall be recorded and appear with the property deed. 42. Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.090 requires that substantial open space be maintained in the Airport Overlay Zone area for emergency landings, pursuant to guidelines beginning on Page 4 =30 of the Handbook. Within the Airport Area Specific Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series) Page 15 Exhibit "A" Plan area, the following open space is required for this purpose: 250 acres on the Chevron property with two areas specifically improved to meet ALUC standards; and a 300' wide strip adjacent to Buckley Road (24 acres) on the Avila Ranch site. Substantial open area is also required for this purpose within the Margarita Area Specific Plan area, at Laguna Lake Park; on the Brughelli property south of Buckley Road; and within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area, west of Highway 101 -and south of Dalidio Drive. Section 17.57.090 further provides that where open space or conservation easements have been obtained and the topography supports it, the City shall not allow uses to be established that conflict with their availability to be used as a landing option in the event of an emergency. Where easements have yet to be obtained, the City shall incorporate the requirement for open land as part of the discretionary approval process. The amount of open space required within the Airport Overlay Zone is prescribed for each of the six (6) Airport Overlay sub - zones, consistent with the Handbook. Reference availability: Airport Land Use Compatibility Report, and Final Compatibility Report Dated August 11, 2014. www.slo2035.com EXHIBIT D ALUC REPORT Page 64 of 65 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS of the Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Report as Prepared by Johnson Aviation for the City of San Luis Obispo and Dated November 22, 2013 Prepared: June 11, 2014 Submitted by the ALUC Subcommittee to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on June 18, 2014. Adopted as comments to the City of San Luis Obispo for their draft EIR for the LUCE (Land Use & Circulation Element on July 16, 2014 Contents Page Number Introduction 1 Executive Summary 3 Deficiencies in the Johnson Report Deficiencies in Analyses of Acceptable Noise Levels 7 Deficiencies in the Johnson Report Deficiencies in Analyses of Aviation Safety Zones 23 Deficiencies in the Johnson Report Inconsistencies Between the Johnson Report on the San Luis Obispo County 29 Regional Airport and Previous Airport Planning Products Prepared by Johnson Aviation Deficiencies in the Johnson Report Inadequacy of Public Input 33 Deficiencies in the Johnson Report Inconsistency With Other Elements of the General Plan 37 This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 Introduction In July of 2013, the City of San Luis Obispo (City) appropriated funds in the amount of $79,340 to amend the scope of work of its pre- existing agreement with Johnson Aviation "in order to provide technical assistance with preparing an Airport Land Use Plan chapter of the Land Use Element as part of the General Plan Update." In consequence of this agreement, Johnson Aviation has produced a document entitled "City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Update, Land Use & Circulation Element (LUCE) Airport Land Use Compatibility Report - DRAFT" which is dated November 22, 2013. To avoid any confusion with the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport duly adopted by the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission pursuant to the California State Aeronautics Act, this document will be further referred to as the Johnson Report. Up to this time, the Johnson Report has not been incorporated as a chapter of the City's Draft Land Use and Circulation Element. It is unknown whether this action will be taken at some future time. In its capacity as the state - mandated body responsible for airport land use planning in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, the Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County has examined the Johnson Report to determine whether it is consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, whether it accurately describes and reflects the recommendations contained therein, and whether it represents a competent basis for airport land use compatibility planning in San Luis Obispo. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 Executive Summary In its capacity as the state - mandated body responsible for airport land use planning in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, the Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County has examined the Johnson Report to determine whether it is consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, whether it accurately describes and reflects the recommendations contained therein, and whether it provides a competent basis for airport compatibility planning in San Luis Obispo. The Airport Land Use Commission has identified the following deficiencies with respect to noise and safety compatibility provisions: Deficiencies in Noise Provisions: • The Johnson Report (Section 2.1) gives the false impression that 14 CFR Part 150 (Federal Aviation Regulations regarding airport noise. compatibility planning) and the State of California establish the 65 dB CNEL contour as the "standard" for determining the compatibility of noise - sensitive land uses with operations at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport; • The Johnson Report incorrectly characterizes the Airport Land Use Planning Area as "urbanized "; • The Johnson Report fails to apply the concept of normalization to proposed airport noise standards; • The Johnson Report fails to relate proposed airport noise standards to the community's expectations for noise exposure, as indicated by local regulations and ordinances; • The Johnson Report fails to relate proposed airport noise standards to the community's expectations for noise exposure, as indicated by the documented pattern of noise complaints; • The Johnson Report's discussion of noise contours projected by the Environmental Impact Report for the November, 2004 Airport Master Plan update is outdated for current airport noise compatibility planning purposes and is inconsistent with State law; • Noise contours depicted in Figure 6 -5 of the Johnson Report are inadequate for airport noise compatibility planning because a.) they are not based on projected airport activity over at least the next twenty (20) years, as required by State law, b.) there is no documentation that the noise contours were prepared by an individual or firm with expertise in aviation noise modeling, c.) the 50 and 55 -d BA contours are not shown and d.) the flight paths flown by helicopters during training maneuvers are not included. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 4 Deficiencies in Safety Provisions: • The Johnson Report gives the false impression that the aviation safety zones for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport should not deviate from the generic aviation safety zones illustrated in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook The analysis of specific aspects of local topography, meteorology, airport operations and other factors which impact traffic flow and accident risk levels (safety zone adjustment factors) in the Johnson Report is grossly inadequate. Inconsistencies in Airport Land Use Compatibility Documents Previously Prepared by Johnson Aviation: The Airport Land Use Commission has reviewed the Airport Land Use Plan for the Perris Valley Airport, which was revised by Johnson Aviation in 2010. A number of unexplained discrepancies were noted between the analyses of noise and safety factors in these two documents: Even though the City of Perris is somewhat larger (i.e., more "urban ") than San Luis Obispo, 55 -dB CNEL was established as the maximum acceptable level for new (non - infill) single - family residential land uses; for San Luis Obispo, Johnson Aviation is recommending 65 dB. The aviation safety zones for the Perris Valley Airport are not identical to the generic zones shown in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook; for San Luis Obispo, Johnson Aviation is urging that they must be. The airport land use planning area for the Perris Valley Airport encompasses the FAA horizontal and conical surfaces; for San Luis Obispo, Johnson Aviation is recommending the much smaller generic "traffic pattern zone" depicted in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Given that the divergent analysis contained within the Johnson Report supports the City's oft - repeated position that additional residential development should be permitted within the safety zones and noise contours established in the Airport Land Use Plan, the Airport Land Use Commission finds it particularly troubling that the Johnson Report gives no indication as to why the analyses at two such similar airports are so markedly different. For all of the above reasons, the Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County finds that the Johnson Report is not a suitable instrument for airport compatibility planning. The adopted Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport provides a more comprehensive reference which has been carefully crafted for the sensitivities of the local community and for operations at our specific airport. The current adopted San Luis Obispo ALUP has been reviewed in detail by the Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation and has been found to be consistent with both the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the State Aeronautics Act. The Division of Aeronautics has, however, recommended that the ALUP be updated to reflect the operational forecasts of the current Airport The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 5 Master Plan. The Airport Land Use Commission is working closely with the Division ofAeronautics to ensure that the upcoming ALUP revision will meet or exceed all State requirements in this regard. In contrast, the Johnson Report has not been approved or endorsed by the California Department of Transportation. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 6 This page intentionally left blank. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 7 Deficiencies in the Johnson Report Deficiencies in Analyses of Acceptable Noise Levels Deficiency N -1. The Johnson Report (Section 2.1) gives the false impression that 14 CFR Part 150 (Federal Aviation Regulations regarding airport noise compatibility planning) and the State of California establish the 65 dB CNEL contour as the "standard" for determining the compatibility of noise - sensitive land uses with operations at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport — This misconception is pervasive throughout the Johnson Report. It is introduced in Section 2.1 (page 7) where the Report states the "...the level of noise acceptable to a person residing in the vicinity of an airport has been determined by the FAA and the State of California to be a community noise equivalent level (CNEL) of 65 decibels (dB) ". It is further iterated in Section 6 (page 42), which states that "Aircraft noise and its impact on people and property is federally regulated by the FAA. The State of California has also established regulations for the maximum normally accepted aircraft noise levels to be consistent with federal aircraft noise regulations. This standard is the 65 dB yearly average noise level ... for residential and other noise sensitive land uses." These statements are, at best, only partially accurate. The FAA does utilize the 65 dB CNEL standard as a factor in certain aspects of airport noise planning, such as establishing curfews on airport operations, limiting the types of aircraft that are allowed to operate, and awarding grants to mitigate pre- existing noise incompatibilities. Neither the federal government nor the State of California, however, establishes or even recommends that 65 dB be adopted as the standard for allowing new noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity of an airport. As will be seen from the discussion which follows, the reality is that: a.) Neither the state nor federal governments require or advocate that Airport Land Use Commissions utilize 65 dB CNEL or any other specific level of noise exposure as the criterion for permitting establishment of new residential or other noise sensitive land uses. b.) Federal Aviation Regulations state definitively that the FAA has no role in determining appropriate land use regulations for areas adjacent to airports —this jurisdiction is expressly reserved to "local authorities ". c.) The State of California, likewise, does not establish any specific noise criteria as being appropriate for new noise sensitive development in the vicinity of airports. The State AeronauticsAct, rather, defines the process bywhich local noise criteria are to be developed through the establishment of Airport Land Use Commissions and Airport Land Use Plans. The guidance provided to Airport Land Use Commissions by the State, however, is that the 65 -bB CNEL standard is too high for "many —if not most — airports in California." d.) Experience in California has demonstrated clearly that the 65 dB CNEL noise standard is inadequate to prevent major conflicts between airport operations and surrounding noise sensitive land uses. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 8 Federal Aviation Regulations and Local Land Use Planning The reality is that Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) indicate very clearly that noise studies performed under 14 CFR Part 150 do not provide criteria for determining the local noise compatibility of any land use. The relevant provision is FAR Part 150.5(d), which reads: "Acceptance of a noise exposure map does not constitute an FAA determination that any specific parcel of land lies within a particularnoise contour. Responsibility for interpretation of the effects of noise contours upon subjacent land uses, including the relationship between noise contours and specific properties, rests with the sponsor or with other state or local government." Table 2 -1 on page 8 of the Johnson Report reproduces material from Appendix A of Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. The title of this table is correctly stated as "TABLE 1 — LAND USE COMPATIBILITY* WITH YEARLY DAY -NIGHT SOUND LEVELS ". Although the Johnson Report Includes multiple footnotes related to Table 1, it fails to provide the text which is related to the asterisk in the Table's title. This text is as follows: "The designations contained in this table do not constitute a Federal determination that any use of land covered by the program is acceptable or unacceptable under Federal, State, or local law. The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties and specific noise contours rests with the local authorities. FAA determinations under part 150 are not intended to substitute federally determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise com- patible land uses." An authoritative evaluation of the current position of the Federal Aviation Agency with respect to noise compatibility planning is provided on pages 4 -3 and 4 -4 of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, as follows: "Federal policy articulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has evolved to where the agency now will "respect and support" local establishment of a lower threshold of noise exposure acceptability." From these provisions, it is clear that the "land use compatibilities" designated by FAR, Part 150 are intended only for use in relation to establishing programs, such as noise monitoring pro- grams, airport curfews, and exclusion of aircraft types, that are designed and carried out in con- junction with the Federal Aviation Administration. Federal Aviation Regulations do not, in fact, establish the 65 dB CNEL contour or any other standard as an appropriate limit for establishment of noise - sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. On the contrary, FAR, Part 150 fully supports the discretion of the Airport Land Use Commission in analyzing local conditions and noise sensitivity and determining appropriate standards for the Airport Land Use Planning Area. Omission of these provisions seriously distorts the meaning and application of FAR, Part 150 and represents a significant deficiency in the Johnson Report. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 9 The State of California and Local Land Use Planning It appears that the Johnson Report's assertion that the State of California has adopted the 65 dB CNEL as a standard for noise sensitive land uses in areas adjacent to airports is based, in large part, on Section 5006 of the California Airport Noise Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Division 2.5, Chapter 6) which states that: "The level of noise acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of an airport is established as a community noise equivalent level (CNEL) value of 65 dB for purposes of these regulations. This criterion level has been chosen for reasonable persons residing in urban residential areas where houses are of typical California construction and may have windows partially open. It has been selected with reference to speech, sleep and community reaction." This section of the California Code of Regulations applies only to airports which have been designated by the county board of supervisors as a "noise problem" airport and has no relevance to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. As explained on page 3 -4 of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook ( CALUPH): "The compatibility criterion (i.e., 65 dB CNEL) identified in the Airport Noise Regulations only is mandated for a few airports (less than a dozen) that are declared to have a "noise problem." The regulations do not establish a mandatory criterion for evaluating the compatibility of proposed land use development around other airports. Section 5004 of the regulations specifically notes: `7t is not the intent of these regulations to preempt the field of aircraft noise limitation in the state. The noise limits specified herein are not intended to prevent any local government, to the extent not prohibited by federal law, or any airport proprietor from setting more stringent standards." As discussed later in this chapter, setting the threshold for land use compatibility lower than 65 CNEL is appropriate at many airports." (emphasis added) It is also notable that the California Airport Noise Regulations indicate that the 65 dB CNEL contour is acceptable to a "reasonable person residing in an urban environment ". As will be shown in later sections of this analysis, the portions of the City of San Luis Obispo which are located within the Airport Land Use Planning Area do not meet the criteria for designation as "urban" set forth in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook'. Other provisions of the CALUPH that relate to the use of the 65 dB CNEL contour for airport compatibility planning include: ' The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook defines an "urban" environment as" areas characterized by mid -rise (up to 5 stories) development; generally surface vehicle parking, but potentially some parking struc- tures. A "dense urban" environment is characterized by "extensive mid- and high- rise buildings, often with 100 percent lot coverage and limited surface parking. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document A Lesson from sonta Monica What the on -going battle over the future of the Santa Monica Airport means for San Luis Obispo There can be no doubt that the Santa Monica Airport has a serious noise problem... • In 2012, the City received 4,368 airport noise complaints from 366 different residences • There is a mandatory night curfew on departures —Pilots are not permitted to start engines or take -off between 11 pm and 7 am Monday through Friday or between 11 pm and 8 am on weekends. • There is a voluntary curfew on nighttime arrivals — Pilots are requested not to land at Santa Monica during the hours above. • Touch - and =go, stop - and=go, and low- approach procedures are prohibited at night • Continuously operating noise monitors have been installed 1,,500 feet from either end of the runway. Any pilot who creates a (single- event) noise reading of more than 95.0 dB at either of these sites has committed an infraction of the City's Aircraft Noise Ordinance. The penalties for violating the Aircraft Noise Ordinance are: first infraction ..................... warning second infraction ............... $2,000 fine third infraction ................... $5,000 fine fourth infraction ................. $1 0,000 fine fifth infraction .................... aircraft is banned from the airport for six months sixth infraction ................... aircraft is banned from the airport permanently During 2012, 155 noise violations were cited — 139 aircraft were warned, 13 were fined $2,000 each, and three aircraft were banned. Unfortunately, all of these regulations and mitigation efforts have done very little to quell the furor over the noise impacts of airport operations. A sampling of internet posts on the topic includes: "YES ! the time has come for the city of Santa Monica to stand up and fight for the many residents in Santa Monica as well as LA who are sick of the noise and fumes from this airport. The little airport is not little any more and now has become an outdated and overused pollution machine. " "SMO has changed radically from a nice, little airport into a dangerous, toxic fume-emitting-jetport." "1 am stunned utterly stunned at the incessant racket producedby the small planes taking offfrom the SM Airport. " On April 1, 2014, the Santa Monica :Daily Press ran a front page story telling how anti-airport activists, aided by elected City officials, ran earth= moving equipment through the perimeter fence and gouged a trench 1000 feet wide and twenty feet deep into the -runway. Although the Daily Press article proved to be nothing more than a bit of April Fools fun, other attacks on the airport have been entirely serious. Responding to citizen complaints of noise and pollution, the City of Santa Monica filed a lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration to negate a long- standing agreement requiring the;airport to remain in operation. Although this effort was denied in federal court, the City Council has remained undeterred. In March of 2014, Council members voted 6 to 0 to develop a strategy to scale back flight operations, cut the 5,000 -foot runway by 2,000 feet, reduce aviation- related services (e.g., fuel sales and flight schools) and to consider converting airport land to low - impact non - aviation uses. The struggle to define the airport's future has been painful for the City of Santa Monica. The debate is intensely polarizing, with plenty of angst and vitriol among both airport opponents and airport supporters. There is, however, a very important lesson to be learned for those of us who live in San Luis Obispo County. The key piece of information for us to consider is that all of this controversy.., the disruption of people's lives and peace of mind, the division of a community... has occurred despite the fact that, in the area surrounding the Santa Monica Airport, not a single residence or other noise - sensitive land use lies within the airport's 65 dB CNEL contour and fewer than 50 residences lie within the 60 dB CNEL contour. The insight to be gained is that 65 dB CNEL represents an airport noise environment that is far too noisy for residential land uses, even in a heavily urbanized setting. This criterion has not prevented massive incompatibility between airport operations and surrounding neighborhoods in Santa Monica, and it will not prevent the same type and magnitude of conflict in San Luis Obispo. The 65 dB CNEL standard harkens.back to Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations which a.) are now more than 30 years old and b.) were developed almost exclusively with reference to dense urban communities like downtown Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago. Not only is this standard outmoded, it has never :been validated in a suburban /rural setting similar to that of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. The Santa Monica experience provides clear and inescapable proof that the venerable 65 dB CNEL contour simply doesn't work anymore. Page 12 "For purposes of airport land use compatibility planning, Caltrans advises that 65 dB CNEL is not an appropriate criterion for new noise - sensitive development around most airports. At a minimum, communities should assess the suitability and feasibility of setting a lower standard for new residential and other noise- sensitive development. " – CALUPH, page 4 -7 "For quieter settings and many —if not most — airports in California, 65 dB CNEL is too high of a noise level to be appropriate as a standard for land use compatibility planning." – CALUPH, page 4 -3 "The three CNEL values commonly used as the limit for acceptable residential noise exposure are: 65 dB, 60 dB, or 55 dB." – CALUPH, page 4 -7 "For airports not located in an urban environment, 65 dB CNEL may be too high, and adjustments to noise compatibility criteria may be guided by local standards or an adjustment that reflects ambient sound levels around the airport (e.g., "normalization ")." – CALUPH, page 4 -12 A review of these provisions makes clear that the State of California does not endorse the 65 dB CNEL as a general criterion for establishment of noise - sensitive land uses in the vicinity of airports. On the contrary, it vests full authority in Airport Land Use Commissions to determine appropriate noise standards for the individual airports within their jurisdiction. In addition, state guidelines strongly suggest that the 65 dB CNEL contour is inappropriate for "many –if not most' airports in California. The suggestion by the Johnson Report that the 65 dB CNEL contour represents a mandated standard for the establishment of new noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity of existing airports is contrary to the actual meaning and intent of 14 CFR Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the California Airport Noise Regulations, the California Aeronautics Act, and the California Airport Land Use Handbook. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report' Document Page 13 Deficiency N -2. The Johnson Report incorrectly characterizes the Airport Land Use Planning Area as "urbanized" — A significant problem with the Johnson Report is that it repeatedly and incorrectly characterizes the environs of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport as an "urban" area (e.g. "The City of San Luis Obispo is an urbanized area according to the 2010 US Census ", page 43). While it may be true that this terminology is applied by the U. S. Census, this is irrelevant for airport compatibility purposes. The appropriate application of California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook standards requires that the character of the area be determined in accordance with CALUPH criteria. Fortunately, the Handbook (page 4 -18) provides very specific criteria for classification of land uses in the vicinity of an airport: Table N -1: California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Land Use Density Categories Category Definition Rural Areas where the predominant land uses are natural or agricultural; buildings are widely scattered Suburban Areas characterized by low -rise (1 or 2 story) development and surface parking lots Urban Areas characterized by mid -rise (up to 5 stories) development; generally surface vehicle parking, but potentially some parking structures Dense Urban City core areas characterized by extensive mid- and high -rise buildings; often with 100 percent lot coverage and limited surface parking Although some portion of downtown San Luis Obispo might, according to Handbook criteria, be considered to be urban in character, this area does not lie within the Airport Land Use Planning Area. Those portions of the City which are adjacent to South Broad Street and South Higuera Street, and which are within the Airport Land Use Planning Area, are well described by the phrase "characterized by low rise (1 or 2 story) development and surface parking" and are, therefore, for airport compatibility purposes "suburban ". Further, planned development in the Airport and Marguerita Specific Plan Areas will also be suburban in character. Large areas of land to the west, south, east, and northeast, primarily under County jurisdiction, are rural in nature. No significant changes in land use in these areas is planned or anticipated. Figure N -1 on the following page, illustrates the current distribution of rural and suburban land use within the Airport Planning Area. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 14 Figure N -1: Land Use Densities in the Airport Planning Area The CALUPH, on page 4 -8, also provides a second methodology for categorizing communities on the rural -urban scale and for determining potential sensitivity to aviation - related noise. This material is particularly applicable to airport noise compatibility, as it relates the nature of the community setting directly to the ambient noise level. This information is presented in Table N- 2: The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 15 Table N -2: Classification of Communities According to Ambient Noise Level Ambient Noise Level Community Setting 47.5 - 52.5 dB Quiet Suburban /Rural 52.5 - 57.5 dB Suburban 57.5 - 62.5 dB Urban 62.5 - 67.5 dB Noisy Urban 67.5 - 72.5 dB Very Noisy Urban Page 4 -14 of the Noise Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo reveals that, with the exception of a strip on either side of U. S. Highway 101, ambient noise levels within residential areas of the city are uniformly below 60 dB, consistent with a suburban or quiet suburban /rural environment. While 60 dB contours appear to exist in the Airport Land Use Planning Area along South Broad Street, Tank Farm Road, and Orcutt Road, the property fronting on these thoroughfares is zoned for commercial uses. It is unlikely that residential or other noise - sensitive uses will be developed on these properties, both because of zoning and because any such use would violate the standards established by Table 1 of the Noise Element. In addition, a survey of ambient noise levels at 47 residential or potentially - residential sites within and adjacent to the Airport Land Use Planning Area confirms the data presented in the Noise Element. Typical ambient sound levels were in the 48 -to -55 dB range, with significantly higher readings (up to 78 dB) in areas close to U. S. 101. In sum, according to both sets of criteria set forth in theAirport Land Use Planning Handbook (type of existing development and ambient sound levels), lands within the Airport Land Use Planning Area are either rural (approximately 2/3 of the land area) or suburban (approximately 1/3 of the land area). Thus, according to Table 4B of the Handbook (page 4 -12 and also reproduced in the Johnson Report) either 55 or 60 dB could be considered reasonable maximum aviation noise exposure levels for new noise - sensitive land uses. The use of the 65 dB contour would not be appropriate. Deficiency N -3. The Johnson Report fails to normalize proposed airport noise standards — Section 4.2.3 of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook discusses in detail the concept of normalization of aviation noise exposure as a means of adjusting aviation noise standards and for determining and predicting expected community reaction. The Handbook strongly encourages Airport Land Use Commissions to utilize the normalization procedure when adopting noise compatibility standards for a particular airport: The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 16 "Over the years, planners have also found normalization to be a valuable tool for establishing appropriate noise level limits for new noise - sensitive development in the vicinity of an airport. This latter application of normalization is particularly well- suited to airport land use planning." — CALUPH, page 4 -4 "At the present time, normalization is the best method available for quantitatively adjusting noise levels to account for local conditions in an effort to establish appropriate noise limits for noise - sensitive land uses near airports." — CALUPH, page 4 -6 "AL UCs are encouraged to considerthe normalization factors listed in Table 4A when setting noise level limits for new noise - sensitive development in the vicinity of an airport." — CALUPH, page 4 -6 In light of these relatively strong suggestions that normalization is an important tool for airport land use planning, the absence of any consideration of this topic in the Johnson Report is troubling. As indicated in the text of the CALUPH (page 4 -5), the usual procedure in California is to start the normalization process with a baseline criterion of 65 dB CNEL. This is deemed to be the cumulative noise level acceptable to a reasonable person (a person whose sensitivity to aircraft noise is near the middle of the public response) residing in an urban setting in the vicinity of an airport (emphasis added). The baseline exposure criterion is then modified by seasonality of exposure, outdoor noise level, previous exposure and community attitudes, and character of the noise according to a standardized methodology, as shown in Table 6 -3. (Table 6 -3 is adapted from Table 4A, page 4 -5 of the CALUPH). For the purpose of normalizing airport noise contours at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, it is clear that seasonality is not at issue (the airport operates year- around) and that the community has some prior exposure to airport noise. No correction, therefore is applied for either of these factors. The noise produced by most propeller- driven aircraft is not considered to be pure tone or impulsive. On the other hand, the sound of two of the more intrusive aircraft types requires additional consideration — the whine of a jet engine includes an element that could be considered "pure tone ", while the "whump - whump" of helicopter rotors might be perceived as impulsive. Airport noise, therefore, is considered to be "variable" with respect to the character of the noise impact. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 17 Table N -3: Adjustment Factors for Obtaining Normalized CNEL Type of CorrectionlDescription Add to Measured CNEL (dB) Seasonal Correction Summer (or year -round operation) 0 Winter only (or windows always closed) +5 Correction for Outdoor Noise Level Measured in-:the Absence of Intruding Noise Quiet suburban or rural community -10 Normal suburban community -5 Urban residential community 0 Noisy urban residential community +5 Very noisy urban residential community +10 Correction for Previous Exposure and Community Attitudes No prior experience with intruding noise -5 Community has had some previous exposure to intruding noise but little effort is being made to control the noise. 0 Community has had considerable previous exposure to the intruding noise and the noise maker's relations with the community are good +5 Community aware that operation causing noise is very necessary and it will not continue indefinitely. +10 Pure Tone or Impulse No pure tone or impulsive character 0 Pure tone or impulsive character present -5 As demonstrated in the preceding comments, the community setting within the Airport Land Use Planning Area surrounding the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport includes both quiet suburban /rural areas and areas of suburban development Consequently, the application of the normalization process yields two possible results. These are shown in Tables N -4 and N -5. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 18 Table N -4: Normalization of Maximum Acceptable CNEL for Noise - Sensitive Uses in Undeveloped Portions of the Airport Land Use Planning Area Adjustment Factor Status Correction Seasonal character of noise Year -round operation 0 Community setting Quiet suburban /rural -10 Previous community exposure Some exposure_ but no control of noise 0 Pure tone or impulsive Varies 0 to -5 Total correction to base (65 dB) CNEL contour -10 to -15 Maximum appropriate CNEL exposure for noise - sensitive uses 50 to 55 dB Table N -5: Normalization of Maximum Acceptable CNEL for Noise - Sensitive Uses in Suburban Residential Portions of the Airport Land Use Planning Area Adjustment Factor Status Correction Seasonal character of noise Year -round operation 0 Community setting Quiet suburban /rural -5 Previous community exposure Some exposure but no control of noise 0 Pure tone or impulsive Varies 0 to -5 Total correction to base (65 dB) CNEL contour -5 to -10 Maximum appropriate CNEL exposure for noise - sensitive uses 55 to 60 dB A reasonable consideration of the results of the normalization procedure leads to three relatively obvious conclusions: a.) The 65 -dB CNEL airport noise contour is an inappropriate criterion for the establishment of new noise - sensitive land uses anfwhere within the Airport Land Use Planning Area. b.) The 50- or 55 -dB CNEL airport noise contour is indicated as the criterion for establishment of new noise - sensitive land uses outside of those portions of the Airport Land Use Planning Area which have been previously developed with suburban land uses, and c.) The 55- or 60 -dB CNEL airport noise contour is indicated as the criterion for establishment of new noise - sensitive land uses within those portions of the Airport Land Use Planning Area which have been previously developed with suburban land uses (i.e., infill development). The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 19 Deficiency N -4. The Johnson Report fails to relate proposed airport noise standards to the community's expectations for noise exposure, as indicated by local regulations and ordinances —A fundamental tenet of airport land use compatibility planning is that the magnitude of noise impacts created by aircraft operations at a specific airport should be within the limits that are considered acceptable by people who actually live in the vicinity of the airport. The City of San Luis Obispo, on February 2, 2010, adopted a municipal noise ordinance that specified the single -event noise exposure that is considered acceptable. For all residential land uses, the maximum exterior noise exposure that is allowed (with a duration of less than one minute) is 75 dB between 7 am and 10 pm, and 70 dB from 10 pm to 7 am. The adoption of a 65 dB CNEL contour as the criterion for noise - sensitive development in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport would be inconsistent with this ordinance. Since any CNEL contour is developed from an average noise impact of all overflights, weighted by time of day, the location of the contour is essentially determined by the number of noise events, as well as by the magnitude of each event. The contour, therefore, can be defined by a few very loud overflights or by a larger number of somewhat less noisy impacts. At very busy airports, where each property on the 65 dB CNEL contour experiences 500 aviation - related noise events per 24 hours, the noise level of each overflight has been reported to be 87.4 dB. This would be more than ten times louder than the maximum noise exposure allowed by the City's Noise Ordinance, even for daytime exposure. In San Luis Obispo, it is likely that most properties located on the 65 dB CNEL contour will experience 50 or fewer noise events per day. In this situation, each noise event would produce a maximum sound level of 97.4 dB — more than 100 times louder than permitted by City Ordinance. As such, there is little question that the adoption of the 65 dB CNEL airport noise contour as the criterion for establishment of new noise - sensitive land uses would be inconsistent with the expectations of the City of San Luis Obispo, as expressed in the Noise Ordinance. The City of San Luis Obispo is prohibited, by federal legislation, from enforcing its Noise Ordinance with respect to aircraft operations. Aircraft which produce noise in excess of what is considered acceptable by our local residents cannot be ticketed, fined, or banned. The only available solution is to avoid placing new noise - sensitive land uses in locations where the sound of aircraft operations will be excessive. Unfortunately, current understanding of the relationship between averaged noise exposure metrics (such as CNEL) and the single -event impacts prohibited by the City's Noise Ordinance is far from complete. Noise monitoring data from the City of Santa Monica (Table 6 -7), however, does provide some useful insight: The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 20 Table 6 -7: Relationship Between Measured CNEL and Single -Event Aviation Noise Impacts in the Vicinity of the Santa Monica Airport Monitoring Measured Actual 'Maximum;Permissible�Single Event Site Location CNEL SENEL -Exposure (SLO:City Noise Ordinance) RMS1 Departure 57.2 dB 83 -93 dB 75 dB (day) /70 dB (night) RMS2 Arrival 53.2 dB 81 -90 dB 75 dB (day) /70 dB (night) ' Maximal permissible exposure in R1, R2, R3, R4, andC /OS zoning categories for noise lasting <1 min. /hr. and not containing a steady, audible tone It is clear from this chart that, even with the current standard for maximum allowable level of aviation noise exposure (55 dB CNEL) and even if each overflight lasts for less than one minute, the community standards for residential single -event noise exposure are exceeded by every airport operation. Changing to a standard of 65 dB CNEL would increase the degree of incompatibility to a marked degree. Deficiency N -5. The Johnson Report fails to relate proposed airport noise standards to the community's expectations for noise exposure, as indicated by the documented pattern of noise complaints — Another appropriate method of determining the community's expectation with regard to aviation - related noise exposure is to examine the historical pattern of noise complaints generated by airport operations. The Johnson Report appears to minimize the importance of noise complaints by impugning the complainants, stating that "...seventy - five percent of all aircraft noise complaints collected by County Airport officials over the last five years have been generated by ten individuals" (page 51). This approach is unlikely to prove a productive method of ensuring that airport noise impacts are within a level that are currently acceptable to the surrounding community, and ignores the critical fact that the County has received more than 1760 complaints during that period. Figure 6 -2 illustrates the areas of the City and County from which noise complaints have been generated, in relation to the 55 and 60 dB CNEL noise contours from the Noise Elements of the General Plans of the City and County of San Luis Obispo. It is clear from this illustration that almost all of the noise complaints originate from residential areas located outside of the 60 dB CNEL contour. In point of fact, one area that is consistently responsible for nearly half of all annual complaints, the Edna -Islay area lies outside of the 55 dB CNEL contour. Adopting the 65 dB CNEL contour as the standard for new noise - sensitive land uses would be inadequate to avoid substantial new noise incompatibilities between the airport and community and will inevitably lead to an increase in the frequency and intensity of noise complaints. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 21 Figure N -2: Airport Noise Complaint Areas The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 22 Deficiency N -6. The Johnson Report's discussion of noise contours projected by the Environmental Impact Report for the November, 2004 Airport Master Plan update is irrelevant to current airport noise compatibility planning — The noise contours projected by the Environmental Impact Report for the November, 2004 Airport Master Plan update are based upon airport activity forecasts to the year 2023 — approximately nine (9) years from the present time. California Public Utilities Code, Section 21675 (a), however, requires that Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans be based on an airport development plan "that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years." Thus, the EIR noise contours discussed in the Johnson Report do not address the minimum time frame required by State law. In addition, the Johnson Report quotes extensively the anticipated impact of changes in airport activity levels on the acreage included within the 65 dB CNELcontour. As previously demonstrated, this is not an appropriate criterion for new noise sensitive development in the area around the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. This discussion, therefore, is irrelevant to meaningful consideration of airport land use compatibility planning. Deficiency N -7. Figure 6 -5 of the Johnson Report is inadequate for airport compatibility planning purposes— Figure 6 -5 of the Johnson Report is inadequate forairport noise compatibility planning because: a.) It is not based on projected airport activity over the next twenty (20) years, as required by State law; b.) There is no documentation that the noise contours were prepared by an individual or firm with expertise in aviation noise modeling; c.) Figure 6 -5 fails to depict the noise contour that is most relevant for airport noise compatibility planning at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (the 55 dB CNEL contour) and fails to show, as recommended by the California Airport Land. Use Planning Handbook (page 3 -6) the contour that is 5 dB below the standard for new noise sensitive development (i.e., the 50 dB CNEL contour); d.) The airport noise study for the SBP Master Plan (on which Figure 6 -5 is based) is, in itself problematic, since it failed to include the flight paths flown by helicopters during training maneuvers and did not anticipate currently existing operations by larger regional jets (e.g., CRJ 900) or potential operations by mid -size airliners (e.g., Airbus A310). These are significant factors in the noise impact of airport operations, and it is not documented that their omission was corrected during the preparation of Figure 6 -5. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 23 0efid2nd2S in the Johnson Report Deficiencies in Analyses of Aviation Safety Zones Deficiency S -1. The Johnson Report (Section 2.3) gives the false impression that the aviation safety zones for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Aiport should not deviate from the generic aviation safety zones illustrated in the CaIiforniaAirport Land Use Planning Handbook — As was the case with measures to avoid noise conflicts between the airport and the surrounding community, the Johnson Report contains repeated statements suggesting that Airport Land Use Commissions are required to or should adopt the generic zones illustrated in the CALUPH for safety planning purposes. An example of this mischaracterization of actual law and regulatory guidance is the first sentence of section 2.3, which reads "California Public Utilities Code (PUC), Section 21675(a) requires preparation of an airport land use compatibility plan (ALUCP) for each public use airport in the State of California, and that land use plan must be guided by the creation of safety compatibility zones as per the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook." In contrast, the actual text of Section 21675(a) reads as follows: "Each commission shall formulate an airport land use compatibility plan that will provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the general welfare ofthe inhabitantswithin the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The commission's airport land use compatibility plan 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 anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years. In formulating an airport land use compatibility plan, the commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and determine building standards, including soundproofing adjacent to airports, within the airport influence area. The airport land use compatibility plan shall be reviewed as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purposes, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year." Notably, the provision cited by the Johnson Report contains no requirements that an airport land use plan contain safety zones at all, let alone that such safety zones be "per the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook." A more relevant section of the State Aeronautics Act would seem to be PUC, Section 21674.7(a), which reads: "An airport land use commission that formulates, adopts, or amends an airport land use compatibility plan shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation." Again, however, the Public Utilities Code does not require that an Airport Land Use Commission designate aviation safety zones, nor that such zones, if adopted, be "per the California Airport The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 24 Land Use Planning Handbook." What is required by Section 21674.7(a) is merely that an Airport Land Use Commission be "guided by ... the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook." To understand the meaning of being "guided by" the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook in the area of safety compatibility planning, it is important to realize that the Handbook does not require an Airport Land Use Commission to designate separate aviation safety zones at all. As explained on pages 3 -36 and 3 -37 of the CALUPH, it is perfectly acceptable for an airport land use plan to be based on a composite map which defines zones "which represent similar combinations of noise, safety hazard, and overflight exposure ". Thus, in addition to not requiring the use of safety zones which are "per the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook ", the Public Utilities Code also does not actually require the use of any distinct safety zones at all. For Airport Land Use Commissions that choose to define specific safety zones, however, the CALUPH does provide a significant amount of material concerning the manner in which the California Division of Aeronautics intends the generic safety zones depicted in Figures 3A and 3B of the Handbook to be utilized: "While accident location data provides a solid foundation for delineation of safety zones, considerable judgment is required when creating zones for a particular airport." — CALUPH, page 3 -16 "To assist ALL/Cs in delineation of safety zones for a given airport, this Handbook provides sets of generic zones intended to serve as a starting place for the exercise." (emphasis added) — CALUPH, page 3 -16 "The generic safety zones presented in the preceding section are intended just as a starting place for the development of zones appropriate for a particular airport. In some cases, the zones might be quite suitable as is. In most instances, however, some degree of adjustment of the generic zones is necessary in recognition of the physical and operational characteristics of the airport." (emphasis added) — CALUPH, page 3 -20 "Various other aeronautical factors that may warrant adjustments to the sizes orshapes of the generic zones are listed in Table 3A. Some of these factors relate to the configuration of the runways. Others are dictated by the way the runways are used. Several other factors deserve consideration when defining safety zones. These factors involve characteristics of the airport environs." — CALUPH, page 3 -21 From these statements, it is can be concluded that the mandate of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and, by extension, of the Public Utilities Code is not for Airport Land Use Commissions to adopt the genericc safety zones discussed at great length in the Johnson Report "per the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook." Very much to the contrary, the The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 25 Handbook and the law requireAirport Land Use Commissions to analyze local conditions at and around an airport and adjust the generic safety zones as appropriate. Additional examples of misleading statements regarding aviation safety zones within the Johnson Report include: • The following sentence is located at the top of page 11: "Figure 2 -1 depicts the following safety zones as recommended by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook that are applicable to an airport like SPB:" From the foregoing discussion, it has been established that the generic safety zones are not, in fact, recommended by the CALUPH, except as a starting point for analysis and modification by the Airport Land Use Commission. Figure 2 -1 of the Johnson Report (page 12) corresponds to Figure 3A of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, with one notable exception. The figure included in the CALUPH is labeled, in large print "Safety Compatibility Zone Examples — General Aviation Runways ", indicating unequivocally that these diagrams are tools to assistAirport Land Use Commissions in airport safety compatibility planning rather than standards or recommendations for use at any specific airport. In the Johnson Report, however, this label has been removed, even though there is ample empty space on page 12 to permit its inclusion. The discussion to this point has focused on the fact that neither the Public Utilities Code nor the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook require, recommend, or advocate for the adoption of the CALUPH generic safety zones for use at any specific airport. It is also relevant to note that the use of the generic safety zones is not standard practice for airport safety compatibility planning in California. In the course of preparing to update the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, the Airport Land Use Commission has reviewed the airport land use compatibility plans for 148 airports in California. Among this sample, aviation safety zones different from the CALUPH zones were utilized in 139 ALUCPs (93.5 %). Clearly, the mandate of the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook that the generic safety zones be modified to fit local needs and conditions is widely followed. Finally, it should be noted that, at the request of the Airport Land Use Commission, the Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation has conducted a specific review of the current Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. The conclusion of this review is that the currently - defined safety zones are consistent with the Public Utilities Code, consistent with the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and justified by local flight patterns, topographical features, meteorologic conditions, and other factors specific to SBP. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 26 Deficiency S -2. The analysis of safety zone adjustment factors in Section 4.3 of the Johnson Report is inadequate — Pages 3 -20 through 3 -22 (including Table 3A) of the California Airport Land Use Handbook discuss a number of factors related to local operational factors and the airport environments which must be considered when defining aviation safety zones for a particular airport. Of the potential adjustment factors for which consideration is mandated, the following are of significance with regard to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport: 1.) High terrain in the vicinity of the airport 2.) Circling instrument approaches 3.) Non - precision approaches not aligned with the runway 4.) Noise - sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the airport 5.) Displaced landing thresholds In addition, the Division of Aeronautics has indicated (personal communication) that, in formulating an airport land use plan, an Airport Land Use Commission must consider all local factors which might impact aviation safety, not merely those enumerated in the CALUPH. Additional safety issues identified at SBP include: 6.) High volume of flight training activity at SBP 7.) Elementary school located adjacent to final approach course for runway 29 Each of these considerations entail changes in traffic flow patterns or traffic density, pilot workload, separation between aircraft in flight and terrain, and other operational impacts which affect the likelihood of aircraft accidents and which, therefore, must be taken into account in designating safety areas for SBP. The discussion of safety zone adjustment factors in Section 4.3 of the Johnson Report is superficial and contains many errors. Examples of the latter include: In discussing the issue of circling approaches, the Johnson Report concludes that no safety zone adjustments are required because "Even though these (circling) procedures are available, there are safer, straight -in approaches available for both ends of Runway 11 -29." This statement, however, ignores the fact that, due to a prevailing northeasterly wind at SBP, a straight -in approach to Runway 11 is frequently unsafe and, therefore, is not available. • In discussing non - precision approaches, the Johnson Report concludes that no safety zone 2 The minimum descent altitude (MDA) is the lowest altitude above mean sea level to which an aircraft perform- ing a non - precision instrument approach may descend in the absence of specified visibility criteria that enable the pilot to identify and safely land at the intended airport. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 27 adjustments are required because "the minimum descent altitudes2 for these procedures preclude descending below standard traffic pattern altitudes within the airport influence area." The traffic pattern altitude at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport is 1,200 feet above mean sea level (MSL) for light aircraft and 1,700 feet above MSL for twins and jets. The minimum descent altitudes (MDA) for non - precision instrument approaches at SBP are: LOC Rwy 11 ......................1,040 feet MSL VOR- A ............................... 1,120 feet MSL RNAV (GPS) Rwy 11.........1,000 feet MSL RNAV (GPS) Rwy 29 ........ 1,180 feet MSL The MDA for each of these non - precision approaches is less than the 1,200 feet MSL specified as the pattern altitude for light aircraft and substantially lower than the 1,700 feet MSL pattern altitude for twins and jets. It is remarkable that the Johnson Report have declares, for each and every safety zone adjustment factor relevant to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, "No safety zone adjustments required ". Unfortunately, in the absence of any meaningful analysis, these conclusions represent only unsubstantiated opinion. In contrast to the Johnson Report, the Airport Land Use Commission has conducted an extensive and detailed analysis of safety zone adjustment factors at SBP and of their impact on the appropriate size, shape, and orientation of aviation safety zones specific to the airport. The ALUC has, additionally, communicated with the Division of Aeronautics on this issue and has been informed that the proposed adjustments to aviation safety zones based upon these analyses are, in the judgment of the Division, justified. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document This page intentionally left blank. Page 29 ❑efidenEies in the Johnson Report Inconsistencies Between the Johnson Report on the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport and Previous Airport Planning Products Prepared by Johnson Aviation As part of its examination and assessment of the Johnson Report, theAirport Land Use Commission compared the document with the Airport Land Use Plan for the Perris Valley Airport (PV ALUP). The PV ALUP was prepared by Johnson Aviation for the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, and Mr. Nick Johnson has suggested that the ALUC review the Perris Valley plan as an example of appropriate airport land use planning at an airport similar to SBP3. The setting of the Perris Valley Airport is slightly more urban than that of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. According to the 2010 U. S. Census, the adjacent community of Perris had a population of 68,386, compared with a population of 45,119 in San Luis Obispo. The Perris Valley Airport has a single runway, 5,100 feet in length, as compared to a length of 6,100 feet for runway 11 -29 at SBP. Current and projected annual airport operations ay Perris Valley Airport are slightly less than half of the corresponding figures for the San Luis Obispo airport. Compared to San Luis Obispo, the setting at Perris Valley Airport is that of a somewhat smaller and less active airport adjacent to a somewhat more urban community. The differences, however, are not, from an airport compatibility planning perspective, dramatic. Despite the apparent similarities between the Perris Valley Airport and the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, the differences between the PV ALUP and the Johnson Report on SBP are startling.... The outer boundary of the airport planning area for the PV ALUP is the FAA conical surface, which extends 14,000 feet from any point on the airport runway, while the outer boundary recommended by Johnson Aviation for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport is the CALUPH traffic pattern zone, which extends only 6,000 feet from any point on an airport runway. The size of the planning area for the PV ALUP is 15,744.9 acres, while the size recommended by Johnson Aviation for the airport planning area in San Luis Obispo is 3,436.6 acres — approximately 79% smaller. • The aviation safety areas of the PVALUP do not conform to the size or shape of the generic safety zones depicted in the CALUPH. Nonetheless, Johnson Aviation is insisting that the safety areas for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport must conform to these generic zones. (It is also noted that the Airport Land Use Plan for March Air Force Base, 3 Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County, Meeting Minutes, October 17, 2012, page 3 of 6. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 30 Table 1 -1: Comparison of Airport Land Use Plan for Perris Valley Airport with Draft "Airport Land Use Compatibility Report" for San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport also prepared by Johnson Aviation, does not incorporate the generic safety compatibility zones for large military aircraft illustrated in Figure 313, page 3 -19, of the CALUPH.) The maximum CNELairport noise contourdeemed compatiblewith single - family residential land uses by the PV ALUP is 55 dB, and yet Johnson Aviation is advocating that 65 dB CNEL should be considered the appropriate criterion for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Perris Valley Airport Land Use Plan Draft '4,Airport:Land =Use Compatibility - Report "`for San:Luisobispo-Couaty Regional Airport Prepared by Nick Johnson Nick Johnson Airport Data Annual operations 34,000 (est.) 79,798 (2012) Number of runways 1 2 Runway length(s) 5,100' 6,10072,500' Lighted runway no yes Adjacent Community Name Perris San Luis Obispo Population (2010 census) 68,386 45,119 Housing units (2010 census) 17,906 20,553 Land Use Plan- Provisions Projection horizon not stated 9 years Projected operations 54,000 140,050 Outer boundary of airport planning area FAA conical surface ALUPH traffic pattern zone Size of airport planning area (acres) 15,774.9 3,436.6 Maximum CNEL for single - family housing 55 dB 65 dB advocated Maximum CNEL for multi - family housing 60 dB 65 dB advocated "Generic" safety zones No 'Yes" is advocated also prepared by Johnson Aviation, does not incorporate the generic safety compatibility zones for large military aircraft illustrated in Figure 313, page 3 -19, of the CALUPH.) The maximum CNELairport noise contourdeemed compatiblewith single - family residential land uses by the PV ALUP is 55 dB, and yet Johnson Aviation is advocating that 65 dB CNEL should be considered the appropriate criterion for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 31 • The maximum CNEL airport noise contour deemed compatible with multi - family residential land uses by the PV ALUP is 60 dB, and yet Johnson Aviation is advocating that 65 dB CNEL should be considered appropriate for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. These inconsistencies between the airport compatibility provisions incorporated by Johnson Aviation into the Airport Land Use Plan for the Perris Valley Airport and the firm's current recommendations regarding the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport are summarized in Table 1 -1. To date, Johnson Aviation has offered no explanation as to why their analysis of appropriate noise and safety provisions for the Perris Valley Airport is so markedly different from the report authored with respect to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. In contrast to the airport compatibility plan developed by Johnson for the Perris Valley Airport, the current Johnson Report appears to minimize legitimate concerns regarding predictable noise and safety conflicts between operations at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport and would potentially serve to facilitate and encourage development inconsistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Plan and the State Aeronautics Act. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 32 This page intentionally left blank. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 33 0efidendes in the Johnson Report Inadequacy of Public Input Deficiency GP -1. The City of San Luis Obispo has indicated that the Johnson Report will be incorporated as an "airport land use chapter of the Land Use Element" of the City's General Plan. The development of the Johnson Report, however, failed to include adequate public input as defined by the State of California General Plan Guidelines, 2003 —At its regularly - scheduled meeting on July 16, 2013, the San Luis Obispo City Council significantly amended the scope of work of its contract with Johnson Aviation. Under the terms of this revision, Johnson Aviation was no longer charged to provide recommendations to the ALUP, but to develop an "airport land use chapter of the (City's) Land Use Element'.' The City Council also authorized an additional payment of $79,000 to Johnson Aviation for the preparation of this section of the General Plan. The 2003 California General Plan Guidelines, authored by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, is the definitive authority with regard to the preparation and adoption of General Plans in California. This document strongly emphasizes the importance of early and on -going public involvement in the planning process and provides extensive guidance as to the responsibilities of local agencies to ensure adequate public input. The requirements of the General Plan Guidelines are evident in the following excerpt from Chapter 8, pages 143- 144: "PROCESS DESIGN A general plan process is a valuable opportunity to focus on current issues in the community. If you are strategic in your process design, your community can get more out of the process than just an updated plan. The following are some important points to consider when designing a public participation process: ♦ Public participation processes take time and resources. Dedicate adequate staff time and other resources to the process. ♦ Community members should be included in the general plan process as soon as possible. A visioning process, focus groups, or an advisory committee can be used to identify issues and involve the community before the process is designed. ♦ Participants need to know up front what they can expect from their participation and what the process sponsors will do with the information that comes out of the process. ♦ It is critical to understand the issues that are important to different segments of the community, including residents, business owners, and elected decision - makers. Address their issues and concerns during the process. Make sure that The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 34 all stakeholder groups feel that they have an opportunity to give input early in the process. ♦ The process should be simple and transparent; participants should be updated frequently as the process moves forward. ♦ The process should be designed to meet the needs of your community. No two processes should be the same. Questions to consider include: Will community members need childcare in order to attend meetings? Are residents more likely to participate on a weekend or early in the morning due to work obligations? Will providing refreshments influence more people to attend? How do community members get their information? How comfortable are they with technology? Is translation necessary? ♦ The entire process should be documented. This includes keeping a record of and reporting on all groups that have been contacted, any information that is used to inform the process, and all decisions that are made. Documentation can be done through media stories, a website, newsletters, or other materials in order to keep the public informed. ♦ The process should be as engaging, interactive, and fun as possible. Sponsorship It is important to the public that the process they participate in has an impact on the final product. Community members often do not participate in public participation processes because they suspect that their input will not be used or that the outcome of the process will be disregarded. In order to encourage the public to be involved, participants need to know that the process has the support of local elected officials and that decision- makers will respect the outcome. The city council, board of supervisors, or planning commission should act as the sponsor, providing its support and endorsement of the process. Trusted community groups can act as partners or co- sponsors in the process as a means to increase community support. Inclusiveness All affected stakeholders should be represented in any public participation process. In a general plan process, this is the entire community. Stakeholder groups in the general plan process may include: ♦ Community and neighborhood groups. ♦ Utility and public service providers. ♦ Educational institutions. ♦ Industry and business. ♦ Civic and community service organizations. ♦ Non - governmental organizations. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 35 ♦ Religious communities. ♦ Other public agencies. Planners should seek to engage the complete range of community interests, such as environmentalists, developers, the elderly, youth, lower - income residents, special needs populations, etc. Inclusive representation is critical in the planning process, as highlighted by the growth of the environmental justice movement. It is not enough to contact community groups. The process must be open and accessible to the entire community." The City of San Luis Obispo appears to be aware of the State requirements for public input in the General Plan development process. To date, the City has held five public workshops on the proposed update of its Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). In addition, the City has sponsored a LUCE Task Force (TF LUCE) that has met thirty -three times between April 18, 2012 and February 18, 2014. In contrast to its vigorous solicitation of public input on the LUCE update in general, however, the City has made virtually no effort to involve either the general population or stakeholders in the preparation of the Johnson Report: • The City ducuments no visioning sessions, public workshops, or focus groups on the issue of airport land use planning prior to the publication of the draft Johnson Report • The Workshop Summaries of the City's five public input workshops do not indicate that Johnson Aviation participated in any of these sessions or that the matter of airport land use compatibility standards were presented or discussed • The Minutes of the TF LUCE do not indicate that there was any discussion of or input on airport land use compatibility prior to the publication of the draft Johnson Report • The TF LUCE discussed the completed draftJohnson Report at its meeting of December 4, 2013. The minutes of that meeting indicate that members of the Task Force commented that they were "not experienced at dealing with this kind of information ", did "not feel qualified or prepared to deal with this ", and expressed "reservation with the process ". As a result of these concerns, the TF LUCE declined to approve the draft Johnson Report. The City's account of the process leading to the publication of the draft LUCE and the Johnson Report does not document efforts to solicit input from individual pilots, pilot organizations (e.g., SLOPA, CalPilots, AOPA), businesses located at or utilizing the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, airline representatives, the Airport Land Use Commission or other stakeholders. On the contrary, the City specifically assured both the Airport Land Use Commission and the Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation that it had "no intentions" of authorizing an airport land use plan. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 36 In light of the above, the Airport Land Use Commission finds that the Johnson Report has failed to meet the standards for public input and inclusiveness established by the California General Plan Guidelines. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 37 Deficiencies in the Johnson Report Inconsistency with Other Elements of the General Plan Deficiency GP -2. Adoption of the Johnson Report as an "airport land use chapter of the Land Use Element" of the City's general plan would violate State law requiring the internal consistency of general plans — Paragraph 65300.5 of the Government Code of the State of California indicates that: "In construing the provisions of this article, the Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency." This requirement for internal consistency has been affirmed by the California Court of Appeals in Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Board of Supervisors of Calaveras County (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 90. Adoption of the Johnson Report as a component of the City's General Plan would create a number of internal inconsistencies: a. The 60 -dB CNEL airport noise contour depicted in the Johnson Report is markedly inconsistent with the 60 -dB CNEL airport noise contour shown in Figure 6 of the City's adopted General Plan Noise Element. b. The 65 dB CNEL contour advocated by the Johnson Report as the standard for restricting noise sensitive land uses would create several inconsistencies with the City's adopted General Plan Noise Element: The City's General Plan Noise Element limits outdoor noise exposure for residences, hotels, motels, hospitals, and nursing homes to 60 dB CNEL, while the Johnson Report advocates 65 dB CNEL. The City's General Plan Noise Element indicates that maximum indoor noise levels (Lmax) for outdoor noise exposure for residences, hotels, motels, hospitals, and nursing homes should not exceed 60 dB CNEL. The 65 dB CNEL contour proposed by the Johnson Report as the standard for excluding noise sensitive land would be associated with maximum indoor noise levels well in excess of Noise Element requirements. Assuming an optimists estimate that usual residential construction techniques will result in a 15 dB attenuation of sound from exterior to interior, the 65 dB CNEL exterior noise criterion proposed by the Johnson Report advocates will be associated with single -event indoor noise levels of 72 to 82 dB Lmax' c. Adoption of the Johnson Report's recommended 65 -dB CNEL standard as acceptable for residential and other noise - sensitive uses would be inconsistent with the City of San Luis Obispo's adopted Noise Guidebook, a document which (according to the City) is The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document Page 38 "intended to be used in conjunction with the City's General Plan Noise Element ". The adopted City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook indicates that: "An exterior noise environment of 50 to 60 dB Ldp or CNEL is considered to be 'normally acceptable' for residential uses according to these guidelines. The recommendations in the State Guidelines, however, also not that, under certain conditions, more restrictive standards may be appropriate. As an example, the standards for quiet suburban and rural communities may be reduced by 5 to 10 dB to reflect lower existing outdoor noise levels. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has prepared guidelines for community noise exposure in Information on the Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. These Federal guidelines consider occupational noise exposure as well as noise exposure away from work locations. The Federal guidelines recognize an exterior noise level of 55 dB Ldp as a goal to protect the public from hearing loss, sleep disturbance, and annoyance." It is therefore the finding of the Airport Land Use Commission that incorporation of the Johnson Report as a component of or reference for the City's General Plan would not be consistent with the requirements established by paragraph 65300.5 of the California Government Code and by the opinion in Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Board of Supervisors of Calaveras County (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 90. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County Analysis of the "Johnson Report" Document EXHIBIT E CALTRANS LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 Page 65 of 65 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA [FORMA STATE TRANSPORTATEON ACCvNCY MALI D0 BROWN Jr, QgYgrno r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS P. O. BOX 942874, MS-40 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274 -0001 PHONE (916) 654 -4959 FAX (916) 653 -9531 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov September 12, 2014 Ms. Kim Murry City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. Murry: 0 Serious drought. Help save water! Re: Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements Update; SCH Number: 2013121019 The California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division), reviewed the above- referenced document with respect to airport- related noise and safety impacts and regional aviation land use planning issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is for an update to the City of San Luis Obispo (City) General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE). After reviewing the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for this project, we have concluded that the City must not certify this FEIR as scheduled on September 16, 2014, because the City has not completed its overrule of the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) current airport land use compatibility plan ( ALUCP.) The City's action would be premature and legally not ripe for certification. Government Code 65302.3 states that local agencies shall make their general plan consistent with the current ALUCP unless a determination of inconsistency by the ALUC has been overruled by the local agency. This has not occurred yet and was not a matter of fact when the FEIR was drafted. Thus,. Caltrans will not be barred from commenting later in light of Government Code section 65009, et. seq. Moreover, Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 21002, and in particular, subdivision (d) authorizes Caltrans continuous jurisdiction of the subject project and the environmental concerns Caltrans has raised in regards to public safety, a matter which is never waived. Since the Draft Environmental Impact Report and FEIR do not analyze the environmental impacts of the only adopted ALUCP for San Luis Obispo Airport's airport influence area, they are flawed and the FEIR must not be certified. It follows then that the project itself shall not be 'approved prior to an overrule of the current ALUCP. 'Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to egbance Cal forma's economy and livability" Ms. Kim Murry September 12, 2014 Page 2 The City has not complied with Public Resources Code section 21096, which references PUC section 21674.5. Pursuant to Section 21674.5, subdivision (b) (4), the City has failed to follow "Appropriate criteria and procedure for reviewing proposed developments and determining whether proposed developments are compatible with airport use." Without waiving its obieetions as stated above, the City has further failed to correctly apply the Handbook's criteria of height, use, noise, safety and density. (See PUC section 21674.7.) If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 654 -6223, or by email at ph'ilip.crirnmins @dot.ca.gov. PHILIP t Aviation Envi{6nmental Specialist cs State Clearinghouse, San Luis Obispo County ALUC, San Luis Obispo Airport "Provide a safe,, sustainable, . integraled and ercient b•ansporlirtion system to enhance Calif rnla's economy and livability "