HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-2014 PH2 LUCE AdoptionCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Kim Murry, Deputy Community Development Director, Long Range Planning
SUBJECT: FINAL ACTION ON THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT
(LUCE) UPDATE PROJECT INCLUDING:
OVERRULE OF THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THE
LUCE UPDATE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN
AND ADOPTION OF APPROPRIATE RESOLUTIONS AND FINDINGS TO APPROVE
THE LUCE UPDATE AND IMPLEMENTATION.
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 3) to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission's
determination of inconsistency relative to noise contours and type and density of land
uses within safety zones S-1b, S-1c, and S-2 of the Airport Land Use Plan; and
2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 4) approving: a) updates to the City's Land Use and
Circulation Elements (LUCE) project, including the South Broad Street Area Plan; and
(b) Compendium of changes to the draft documents including findings to support a
determination that project modifications do not warrant additional environmental review
in conformance with CEQA section 15162; and related amendments to the Noise, Safety,
and Conservation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan for internal consistency;
and (c) Land Use Element map changes to reflect updated land use designations; and
3. Introduce municipal code amendments (Attachment 5) to the Municipal Code
establishing an Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, and amending
Zoning designations for LUCE special focus areas.
DISCUSSION
Background
The last significant update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements was done in 1994 and the
City’s decision-making has relied on the guidance in the elements over the intervening years. In
late 2011, the City was awarded a Strategic Growth Council Grant in the amount of $880,000 to
update the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE), and the Council augmented the grant
funds with General Funds in order to complete the associated environmental review (which was
not an eligible grant activity).
The update was formally initiated in January 2012 and the City Council appointed a task force
comprised of resident volunteers (the TF-LUCE) to help guide the process and formulate
recommendations for the Planning Commission and Council. Seventeen residents from all parts
of the City were appointed to serve on the TF-LUCE and participated in 34 meetings over the
last two years to provide input and guidance. The TF-LUCE represented diverse points of view
as evidenced by minority reports submitted to the Council at several points in the process.
10-21-14
PH2
PH2 - 1
LUCE Adoption and AOZ Ordinance Introduction Page 2
Early outreach efforts included a survey distributed to every address in the city. In order to
determine if community sentiment had changed over 20 years, the survey was comprised of
questions similar to those from a survey conducted in 1988, in advance of the previous LUCE
update. Responses were received from nearly 2,200 community members and, consistent with
the survey conducted in 1988, the natural environment scored highly both in terms of its impact
on quality of life and also in terms of respondents’ satisfaction with the current condition of the
natural environment. In addition, a majority of respondents indicated a desire to use vacant lots
(71.5%) and redevelopment of underdeveloped sites (63.4%) to accommodate new housing
instead of expanding the City’s boundaries to do so. A summary of the complete survey results
is included as Attachment 1.
The LUCE update has included diverse opportunities for community members to be engaged in
the process (see Attachment 2). One of the more innovative methods used to alert the
community about the LUCE update was conducted between November 2012 and January 2013
during the visioning process. The City aired ads at all screens in the Downtown Cinemark
Theater in advance of all movies for a period of 12 weeks. Other outreach/input opportunities
included larger community workshops held at key points in the update process, the TF-LUCE
working sessions, an interactive on-line “virtual town hall” called MindMixer, over 75 e-blasts,
tweets, and hearings before the Planning Commission and advisory bodies. The workshops are
listed below:
Workshop 1 May 16, 2012 Neighborhood boundaries and attributes
Neighborhood
Open House
Series 1
July 28, 2012
9:30-11:30 Elks
12:30-2:30 SLO Swim Center
3:00-5:00 Laurel Creek
Open houses to discuss:
Good Things, Bad Things, and Great Ideas
Workshop 2 September 27, 2012 Issues and Opportunities
Neighborhood
Open House
Series 2
September 29, 2012
9:30-11:30 New Frontiers
12:30-2:30 Zion Church
3:00-5:00 Senior Center
Open houses to discuss:
Good Things, Bad Things, and Great Ideas
Workshop 3 December 1, 2012 Visioning the Future
Workshop 4 June 1, 2013 Physical Land Use and Circulation changes
Workshop 5 December 7, 2013 Refined physical and policy changes
EIR and LUCE Review process
Workshop 6 May 31, 2014
Multi-modal circulation model and draft
EIR outcomes. Airport and Land Use
options.
The resident task force worked diligently through the entire process – attending and facilitating
workshops, reaching out to others, providing context from the previous update, and spending
untold hours listening to public input, and reviewing and making policy recommendations to
ensure the community vision for the upcoming 20 years was thoughtfully reflected in the draft
PH2 - 2
LUCE Adoption and AOZ Ordinance Introduction Page 3
documents referred to the Planning Commission and Council. The Commission provided
recommendations to the Council and the Council ultimately identified the combination of
physical and policy changes as the project to be studied through the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR).
With certification of the EIR, review of Planning Commission recommendations, and subsequent
Council review and direction on the draft documents, tonight’s hearing represents the
culmination of a robust process to update the City’s guiding “blueprint” for future development
of the community.
Land Use and Circulation Elements Actions
1. Airport Overrule
The LUCE update and EIR was referred to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for
review and on July 16, 2014, the ALUC found the LUCE update and associated Zoning
implementation to be inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The ALUC’s
determination was broad and did not include any specificity as to what components of the LUCE
were inconsistent with the current ALUP. The City Council considered the determination, and
took preliminary action to send draft findings of overrule to the State Division of Aeronautics
and the ALUC in compliance with Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676(b). This process
allows for the ALUC and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics to provide comments in response to
the draft findings and requires the Council to consider those comments prior to final action being
taken by the Council.
Staff reviewed comments received from both agencies and, in response, proposed a revised
approach to implementation through the draft Airport Overlay Zone, which reflects the existing
Airport Land Use Plan safety zones and the adopted Airport Master Plan noise contours for
Council review. The proposed Airport Overlay Zone provides land use intensity and density
limitations that are consistent with the State Aeronautics Act that is supported by substantial
evidence in the findings based upon guidance from the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook and Federal requirements, as well as the Airport Land Use Plan. Point by point
responses to the ALUC and Caltrans letters is provided as Exhibits B and C respectively in
Attachment 3. There are 265 detailed responses covering 135 pages to the ALUC comment
letter and 22 equally detailed responses covering 19 pages to the CalTrans comment letter.
Tonight, final action by the City Council to overrule will be required in order to implement the
land use concept developed through the LUCE update process. Attachment 3 contains the
resolution with updated findings, detailed responses to Caltrans and ALUC comments, and
incorporates the compatibility report prepared by Johnson Aviation by reference. Four
affirmative votes by the Council are required to overrule the ALUC determination. If the
overrule does not pass, action related to LUCE adoption will need to be table to determine a
future course of action.
2. Land Use Element Updated policies and programs
The Land Use Element contains new policies and programs that were reviewed and edited by the
Task Force, the Planning Commission and Council in response to public input. The edits reflect
specific policy direction for the new areas of housing development – Avila Ranch, San Luis
Ranch, and the Madonna at Los Osos Valley Road areas – as well as policies to support housing
PH2 - 3
LUCE Adoption and AOZ Ordinance Introduction Page 4
opportunities as part of mixed use projects. New chapters on Sustainability and Healthy Cities
have been added and new policies are included to consider opportunities to promote multi modal
mobility. The Element has been re-organized to bring the land use designations and descriptions
to the front of the element. All graphics, references, and numbering will be corrected and
updated with the final printed version. Council direction regarding edits to the draft element is
reflected in the Compendium included as Attachment 4, Exhibit A.
3. Circulation Element Updated policies and programs
The LUCE update includes a response to AB 1358, the California Complete Streets Act, which
requires Circulation Elements to “plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that
meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, for safe and convenient travel in a
manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.”1 Edits to the
element include a new policy to support a multi-modal circulation system and addition of a new
Chapter 6, which includes policies and priorities for modes of travel for the City.
The Circulation Element policies and programs were updated through the public review process
to reflect the community’s desire to see a stronger shift in mode choice to address issues related
to congestion, resources, and emissions associated with greenhouse gases. Policies have been
updated to support traffic reduction measures in neighborhoods, increase infrastructure to
support bicycling and walking, and to collaborate with regional partners to ensure connectivity.
As detailed in the Fiscal Impact analysis, this update represents a significant expansion in the
scope of the City’s Transportation Planning and Engineering services with over 30 new
programs and policies to increase bicycle, pedestrian, and transit mode share.
On October 7, 2014, Mayor Marx distributed a summary of proposed changes and comments.
Staff’ review and summary of these comments are included as Attachment 6.
4. Ordinances
Three specific implementation items of the LUCE update are recommended for adoption. These
actions include: (1) Creation of the Airport Overlay Zone, (2) Establishment of a Special Focus
Area Overlay Zone, and (3) Adoption of the updated Zoning Map.
The Airport Overlay Zone is required to show how the City intends to implement the State
Aeronautics Act to ensure land uses will be compatible with on-going and future operation and
viability of the airport. The Special Focus Area Overlay Zone is needed to indicate that in
addition to any use provisions associated with the underlying zoning category, particular areas
have policies in Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element which guide desired form of future
development. This implementation is a critical piece to tie the policy guidance to implementing
Zoning Regulations for any development proposals within the Special Focus Areas. The updated
Zoning Map reflects where land use changes have been supported through the LUCE update and
identifies Zoning designations consistent with the General Plan designations. The ordinance will
be introduced at tonight’s meeting with the second reading anticipated to occur on November
10th.
1 Government Code Section 65302 b(2)(A)
PH2 - 4
LUCE Adoption and AOZ Ordinance Introduction Page 5
CONCURRENCES
The LUCE and FEIR were reviewed by all City departments and were distributed to various
agencies for comment and made available for public review and comment.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On September 16, 2014, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
prepared for the LUCE update project, after adopting findings that included a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. In accordance with Section 15162 of CEQA Guidelines, the minor
text changes which have occurred through Planning Commission and City Council review do not
require a subsequent or supplemental EIR, because no major changes or changed circumstances
have occurred which would require major revisions to the EIR, and no new information has been
presented that would warrant the need for further environmental review. Only minor LUCE
Update policy amendments have occurred since certification of the Final EIR, to incorporate
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR or otherwise reduce project impacts.
FISCAL IMPACT
The LUCE update was made possible by a Sustainable Communities Grant in the amount of
$880,000 provided by the State of California Strategic Growth Council (SGC). This amount was
augmented by $467,500 in General Funds to pay for the environmental review process and to
support Public Works and Fire Department staffing impacts associated with the project. The
Fiscal impacts of the General Plan update have been evaluated through the Fiscal Impact Report.
Analysis in this report shows the LUCE update supports a fiscally balanced mix of land uses that
mimics or slightly improves the City’s current fiscal balance of revenue and costs. The SGC
grant has been expended and closed out - no further grant funds are available.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue this item with specific direction to staff.
2. Do not overrule the Airport Land Use Commission determination. This alternative is not
recommended because it would mean the LUCE update could not proceed and a new
community outreach and visioning process would be required to develop a new land use
concept and substantial revisions that would likely take years and a substantial
investment in city resources to complete.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2012 Community Survey Summary
2. Summary of Public Outreach through the LUCE process
3. Resolution to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission determination, including
a. Exhibit A: Revised findings to overrule
b. Exhibit B: Response to comments from County Airport Land Use Commission
c. Exhibit C: Response to comments from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
4. Resolution approving updates to the General Plan, including Draft Land Use and
Circulation Elements and South Broad Street Area Plan (Blue Book) by reference.
PH2 - 5
LUCE Adoption and AOZ Ordinance Introduction Page 6
Exhibit A: Council Compendium of changes to Draft Land Use and Circulation
Elements; and updates to Noise, Safety, and Conservation and Open Space Elements
Exhibit B: General Plan Land Use Element Map Amendments for Special Focus Areas.
5. Ordinance amending Zoning Regulations for the Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus
Area Overlay Zone, and Zoning map amendments for Special Focus Areas.
Exhibit A: Zoning map amendments for Special Focus Areas
6. Mayor Marx-Agenda Correspondence Summary
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Johnson Aviation, Airport Compatibility Report
Noise Complaints - San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport 2009-2013
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-10-21\LUCE Adoption (Johnson-Murry)\CAR-LUCE_Adoption.docx
PH2 - 6
Attachment 1
Community Survey
PH2 - 7
Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 1
Survey Overview
The City of San Luis Obispo conducted a survey of its residents and businesses to gauge their opinions on overall quality of
life and future development as part of the update of the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements.
The survey was distributed to more than 25,000 residents and businesses via utility bill inserts and direct mail. It was also
made available online. The survey was completed by 2,029 people via return mail and 169 people online, for a total of
2,198 respondents.
Mail and online surveys are not considered statistically valid as they are “self-selected” – meaning that people choose to
participate based on their own desire to share their opinions. The City Council opted for this course of action so that any
and all residents and businesses would have an opportunity to participate in the effort. In comparison, the 1988
community survey was done as a random phone survey and included 585 respondents. The random nature of the 1988
survey allowed it to be treated statistically, with the ability to state that answers were accurate within a specified range
(plus or minus). While not the same type of survey mechanism, given the high number of responses for the 2012
community survey, we believe the findings from this survey are a good representation of the opinions of San Luis Obispo
residents and business owners.
Survey Questions
The questions were based on a survey conducted by the City in 1988 and included five major topic areas:
1. Overall Quality of Life
2. City Growth and Relationship to the Region
3. Form of Development
4. Public Facilities and Services
5. Basic Demographic Information
Summary
An overview of the final result from the 2012 survey is provided on the following pages. For questions that are similar to
those in the community survey conducted in 1988, a comparison of the results is also provided.
For questions in the 2012 survey that allowed respondents to write in a response, these are summarized in the main
report. A complete listing of responses is provided in the appendix.
Several of the questions asked respondents to rate their feeling towards a certain topic on a scale of 1 to 5. For these
questions, a weighted average was calculated for each topic to determine its overall level. The weighted averages were
calculated by multiplying the number of responses by each rating number (1 through 5), adding up each of the sums, and
then dividing them by the total number of responses. For questions that this applies, weighted averages are shown in the
“Weighted Average” column of the respective tables.
Attachment 1
PH2 - 8
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 2 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012
Quality of Life
How would you rate the overall Quality of Life in San Luis Obispo? Approximately 81% of respondents rated the quality of
life as “high” with less than 2% rating it as “low”. That’s a higher number than the 1988 survey, which had 76% of
respondents choosing “high” and less than 1% choosing “low” (see Figure 1).
How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Luis Obispo?
Figure 1. Quality of Life, San Luis Obispo 2012
When asked to identify San Luis Obispo’s greatest problem, respondent’s top choices were the homeless (19%), traffic
(10%), lack of jobs (9%), and affordable housing (9%). Downtown parking and congestion was cited by 8%. Many
expressed concerns about future growth and development (see Table 1).
This shows a shift from 1988 responses more than doubling the percentage of people who cited homeless issues as the
City’s greatest problem. Concerns about traffic actually went down from 1988 though it remains one of the top
concerns. The survey also shows the shift in the job market with concerns about available jobs more than doubling.
Attachment 1
PH2 - 9
2012 Community Survey
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 3
Greatest Problems Identified, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 1.
Category Percentage Number of Respondents
Homeless 19% 347
Traffic 10% 180
Jobs 9% 166
Housing 9% 166
Downtown 8% 144
Growth 4% 85
Business 3% 70
Cost of Living 3% 68
Streets 3% 67
Development 2% 44
Neighborhoods 2% 40
Quality 2% 39
Government 2% 38
Water 2% 36
Police 1% 33
Cal Poly 1% 23
City Council 1% 19
Big Box Stores 1% 19
Planning 1% 19
Shopping 1% 19
Regulation 1% 18
When asked about the City’s greatest strength, the natural setting took most of the top spots as it had in the 1988 survey
(see Table 2).
Greatest Strengths Identified, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 2.
Category Percentage Number of Respondents
Weather 12% 221
Beauty 12% 220
Location 8% 147
Community 8% 144
Open Space 7% 133
Downtown 7% 133
Climate 6% 106
Small Town 5% 87
Quality of Life 3% 61
Cal Poly 3% 58
Culture 1% 31
Clean Air 1% 30
Natural Environment 1% 29
SLO 1% 23
Citizens 1% 23
Low Crime 1% 2
Attachment 1
PH2 - 10
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 4 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012
Listed below are several aspects of "quality of life" in San Luis Obispo. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being LEAST important
and 5 being MOST important, respondents rated natural environment and crime as having the highest impact on quality
of life (see Table 3) – echoing the sentiments expressed by 1988 respondents.
Quality of Life Aspects Identified, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 3.
1 2 3 4 5 Weighted
Average
Response
Count
Natural environment (air quality,
open space)
2.1%
(42)
1.4%
(29)
5.5%
(110)
19.9%
(401)
71.1%
(1,429)
4.56 2,011
Job opportunities 4.2%
(83)
7.7%
(153)
19.4%
(387)
30.7%
(613)
38.2%
(763)
3.91 1,999
Recreation opportunities 1.8%
(36)
4.6%
(93)
20.0%
(402)
40.6%
(815)
32.9%
(660)
3.98 2,006
Entertainment opportunities 2.1%
(43)
9.0%
(181)
33.5%
(673)
38.5%
(773)
16.9%
(340)
3.59 2,010
Educational opportunities 2.7%
(54)
5.8%
(116)
16.6%
(334)
32.1%
(646)
42.8%
(860)
4.07 2,010
Shopping opportunities 4.6%
(92)
13.9%
(280)
35.8%
(720)
30.0%
(603)
15.7%
(316)
3.38 2,011
Pace of life 2.7%
(53)
4.1%
(82)
18.0%
(360)
33.2%
(664)
42.0%
(840)
4.08 1,999
Crime levels 2.5%
(51)
3.1%
(62)
9.2%
(184)
22.3%
(448)
62.9%
(1,265)
4.40 2,010
Opportunities to participate in
government decisions
3.2%
(65)
8.0%
(160)
27.7%
(554)
35.3%
(707)
25.8%
(517)
3.72 2,003
Traffic Safety and Congestion
Management (local travel and
parking)
2.4%
(47)
5.1%
(102)
18.4%
(368)
33.5%
(670)
40.7%
(813)
4.05 2,000
Transportation choices – bus service,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities
2.4%
(49)
8.9%
(178)
22.1%
(443)
31.5%
(632)
35.2%
(706)
3.88 2,008
Housing opportunities (cost and
choice of types)
3.2%
(65)
7.9%
(159)
24.2%
(485)
29.3%
(588)
35.3%
(708)
3.86 2,005
Cultural diversity (people with
different backgrounds and interests)
5.3%
(106)
16.3%
(327)
31.3%
(628)
28.0%
(561)
19.1%
(382)
3.39 2,004
Downtown character and activities 3.2%
(64)
6.9%
(139)
19.4%
(390)
33.6%
(674)
36.9%
(741)
3.94 2,008
Property maintenance (upkeep,
junk/litter control)
2.5%
(51)
6.3%
(126)
20.0%
(402)
34.8%
(698)
36.4%
(731)
3.96 2,008
Access to healthy foods – fresh
produce and supermarkets
2.2%
(44)
5.9%
(119)
16.8%
(337)
29.5%
(590)
45.5%
(911)
4.10 2,001
Next, respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the current conditions of each area with 5 being
MOST satisfied (see Table 4). Overall satisfaction was high but respondents indicated concern with job opportunities,
housing, and cultural diversity. Jobs and housing were also cited as areas with “dissatisfaction” in the 1988 survey.
Attachment 1
PH2 - 11
2012 Community Survey
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 5
Current Conditions Satisfaction, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 4.
1 2 3 4 5 Weighted
Average
Response
Count
Natural environment (air
quality, open space)
1.8% (35) 2.8% (56) 6.8% (136) 38.4% (764) 50.2%
(1,000)
4.32 1,991
Job opportunities 9.0% (178) 21.3% (421) 43.3% (855) 21.4% (422) 5.1% (100) 2.92 1,976
Recreation opportunities 1.4% (27) 3.7% (74) 22.5% (447) 43.9% (873) 28.5% (566) 3.94 1,987
Entertainment
opportunities
1.5% (30) 6.2% (124) 28.7% (572) 43.1% (859) 20.5% (408) 3.75 1,993
Educational opportunities 1.4% (27) 4.9% (97) 20.1% (399) 42.2% (840) 31.5% (627) 3.98 1,990
Shopping opportunities 4.7% (93) 11.5% (228) 27.1% (538) 38.5% (765) 18.3% (364) 3.54 1,988
Pace of life 1.8% (36) 3.4% (68) 15.8% (313) 39.4% (783) 39.6% (786) 4.12 1,986
Crime levels 2.2% (43) 9.1% (180) 23.1% (459) 42.2% (838) 23.4% (464) 3.76 1,984
Opportunities to
participate in government
decisions
3.1% (61) 8.2% (161) 37.0% (729) 36.2% (713) 15.5% (305) 3.53 1,969
Traffic Safety and
Congestion Management
(local travel and parking)
7.0% (140) 21.3% (424) 28.2% (561) 33.8% (671) 9.7% (192) 3.18 1,988
Transportation choices –
bus service, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities
2.9% (58) 12.4% (246) 31.2% (620) 37.1% (737) 16.3% (324) 3.52 1,985
Housing opportunities
(cost and choice of types)
8.7% (173) 23.2% (460) 40.0% (793) 20.5% (407) 7.5% (148) 2.95 1,981
Cultural diversity (people
with different
backgrounds and
interests)
5.5% (109) 13.2% (261) 41.5% (824) 25.8% (511) 14.1% (279) 3.30 1,984
Downtown character and
activities
2.5% (50) 7.4% (146) 20.8% (411) 43.1% (852) 26.2% (518) 3.83 1,977
Property maintenance
(upkeep, junk/litter
control)
3.3% (66) 9.9% (196) 27.4% (544) 44.5% (882) 14.9% (296) 3.58 1,984
Access to healthy foods –
fresh produce and
supermarkets
1.7% (34) 4.1% (80) 18.4% (363) 40.4% (798) 35.4% (700) 4.04 1,975
Attachment 1
PH2 - 12
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 6 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012
When asked to name a place they particularly enjoy, people continued to name San Luis Obispo’s Downtown, Mission,
open spaces, and parks (see Table 5) just as they did in the 1988 survey.
Particular Place of Enjoyment, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 5.
Category Percentage Number of Respondents
Downtown 37% 584
Park 11% 179
Mission 7% 122
Laguna Lake 4% 69
Open Space 4% 68
Creek 4% 66
Bishop Peak 3% 48
Walking 2% 40
Hiking Trails 2% 33
Railroad 2% 33
Irish Hills 1% 27
Madonna 1% 26
They were less enthusiastic about Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR), which topped the list of “least” liked places (see Table 6).
This question yielded different responses from the 1988 survey as LOVR had not been expanded at that time. Both
surveys identified areas associated with traffic and higher ratios of rental housing.
Least Liked Places of Enjoyment, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 6.
Category Percentage Number of Respondents
LOVR 14% 195
Downtown 13% 172
Madonna Road 8% 114
Parking 7% 97
Homeless 7% 93
Foothill Boulevard 4% 62
Streets (in general) 4% 53
Broad Street 3% 51
South Higuera Street 3% 46
Attachment 1
PH2 - 13
2012 Community Survey
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 7
City Growth and Relationship to the Region
When asked which of the following approaches to determining allowable growth in the City they supported, respondents
continued, but to a lesser degree, to support preservation of the natural environment (see Figure 2). Sixty–six percent
want to keep growth in existing areas and 60% support avoiding harm to the natural environment. That’s a change from
the 1988 survey where over 85% of respondents sought to keep growth in existing areas and 79% supported avoiding
hard to the natural environment.
Figure 2. Approaches to Allowable Growth, San Luis Obispo 2012
Attachment 1
PH2 - 14
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 8 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012
Nearly 55% of respondents support “No Change” in residential growth rate, with over 14% supporting some increases but
none greater than the County or the State as a whole (see Figure 3). Just 10% supported no growth limits. This question
also saw a shift in responses from the 1988 survey. Previously 35% supported “no or very little” increase to the City’s
population with 39% supporting modest increases and 17% supporting “no growth limits”.
Figure 3. Preferences to Change Current Residential Growth, San Luis Obispo 2012
San Luis Obispo has worked to balance development and conservation to preserve the City’s natural beauty and unique
character and heritage while supporting housing opportunities and a vibrant economy. People were asked if the City has
not enough, enough, or too much of the various types of development. Respondents indicated the City has “enough” of
each category; however, housing and manufacturing were cited as low by some (see Table 7).
This is substantially different than the 1988 survey. Respondents then sought more housing (70%), tourist/visitor serving
activities (53%), shopping (58%), and cultural activities (70%).
Attachment 1
PH2 - 15
2012 Community Survey
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 9
Types of Development, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 7.
Not enough Enough Too much Response
Count
Housing 33.0% (637) 58.9%(1,135)8.1% (156) 1,928
Tourist/visitor serving 9.5% (184) 79.5% (1,538)11.0% (213) 1,935
Manufacturing 43.9% (827) 51.3% (967)4.8% (91) 1,885
Business Park 23.5% (443) 65.2% (1,232)11.3% (214) 1,889
Shopping/stores 21.3% (412) 59.5% (1,151)19.1%(370) 1,933
Cultural/entertainment 21.5% (416) 73.4% (1,423)5.2% (100) 1,939
Medical, legal, financial
services 14.7% (284) 77.0% (1,484) 8.3% (159) 1,927
Government
agencies/institutions 4.4% (84) 69.4% (1,338) 26.3% (507) 1,929
What influences Quality of Life in San Luis Obispo? According the respondents, air quality, traffic, aircraft noise, and the
preservation of farmland were cited as the factors that MOST influence quality of life in San Luis Obispo (see Table 8),
mirroring the 1988 survey results.
Quality of Life Influences, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 8.
1 2 3 4 5 Weighted
Average
Response
Count
Air pollution 15.3% (301) 14.4% (283) 19.0% (373) 16.6% (325) 34.7% (680) 3.41 1,962
Car/truck traffic noise 6.2% (122) 14.2% (279) 25.1% (493) 25.8% (506) 28.6% (561) 3.56 1,961
Aircraft noise 16.9% (331) 22.4% (439) 29.5% (580) 17.1% (336) 14.1% (277) 2.89 1,963
Crowding/delay on
streets & roads 6.8% (132) 15.9% (310) 25.9% (504) 25.3% (492) 26.1% (508) 3.48 1,946
Crowing/delay at
parking facilities 9.1% (175) 17.6% (340) 33.6% (648) 22.9% (442) 16.8% (323) 3.21 1,928
At parks or recreation
facilities 12.3% (235) 22.9% (440) 36.7% (703) 15.8% (304) 12.3% (236) 2.93 1,918
Development on
farmland, ranchland 7.5% (142) 11.8% (222) 26.7% (504) 20.8% (393) 33.1% (624) 3.60 1,885
Development on
creeks, marshes 6.8% (127) 10.1% (189) 25.7% (483) 19.1% (359) 38.3% (720) 3.72 1,878
Form of Development 5.0% (89) 10.0% (177) 32.5% (574) 22.3% (394) 30.2% (534) 3.63 1,768
Overall intensity of
development 4.6% (86) 10.4% (192) 30.1% (557) 22.8% (422) 32.1% (594) 3.67 1,851
Overall pace of life 5.3% (98) 9.7% (181) 27.8% (517) 22.5% (418) 34.7% (644) 3.72 1,858
Attachment 1
PH2 - 16
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 10 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012
San Luis Obispo and the surrounding area includes about 34% of the jobs in the county, and about 18% of the houses and
apartments, which results in commuting. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being no effort and 5 being high effort, respondents
were asked how much effort they thought should go into each of the following approaches to reduce commuting impacts
(see Table 9).
Approaches to Reducing Commuting Impacts, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 9.
1 2 3 4 5 Weighted
Average
Response
Count
Expand roads and
parking facilities to
reduce congestion.
18.3% (344) 16.2% (304) 27.4% (516) 18.8% (354) 19.3% (364) 3.05 1,882
Discourage commuting
by individual drivers
and encourage use of
busses, van pools,
bicycles, and carpools.
13.5% (258) 11.1% (212) 20.5% (391) 20.4% (389) 34.5% (657) 3.51 1,907
Discourage additional
jobs in San Luis Obispo.
41.3% (775) 15.7% (294) 23.8% (447) 9.3% (174) 9.9% (186) 2.31 1,876
Encourage housing
development in San
Luis Obispo.
19.7% (371) 16.5% (310) 27.8% (523) 16.5% (310) 19.6% (368) 3.00 1,882
Respondents indicated they would like the City to focus the most effort in discouraging commuting and the least effort in
discouraging additional jobs here in San Luis Obispo. More local employment translated to fewer commuters.
Attachment 1
PH2 - 17
2012 Community Survey
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 11
Form of Development
To accommodate new growth in the City, 71% of respondents supported using vacant lots in existing neighborhoods for
buildings like those that have been built in the neighborhood with over 63% supporting redeveloping underdeveloped
sites with buildings compatible with the neighborhood (see Figure 4). A little more than half supported mixed-use infill
development in existing buildings. This was slightly less than responses in 1988 when 81% supported using vacant lots in
existing neighborhoods.
Figure 4. New Growth, San Luis Obispo 2012
Attachment 1
PH2 - 18
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 12 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012
To accommodate new businesses, banks, and office buildings, the clear preference, with 80% of respondents choosing it,
was development in existing commercial areas, using vacant lots for new buildings generally like ones that have been built
there (see Figure 5). In 1988 65% of respondents supported that idea with 37% supporting replacing existing buildings
with larger ones.
Figure 5. New Development Preferences, San Luis Obispo 2012
Attachment 1
PH2 - 19
2012 Community Survey
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 13
When asked about what changes they would like to see in certain land uses, only two land uses resulted in substantial
differences, with 59% seeking fewer bars downtown (choice 1 and 2) and 71% seeking additional small city parks in
residential areas (choice 4 and 5) (see Table 10). The City received similar responses in 1988 with 63% of people seeking
more small parks and 41% seeking fewer bars.
Land Use Changes, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 10.
1 2 3 4 5 Weighted
Average
Response
Count
Small second dwellings ("granny
units") in areas that are mostly
individual houses.
13.5%
(256)
7.6%
(144)
33.2%
(632)
24.6%
(468)
21.1%
(401)
3.32 1,901
Specialty stores (such as books or
clothing) in small neighborhood
shopping centers.
7.5%
(143)
6.0%
(115)
32.8%
(624)
31.7%
(603)
22.0%
(418)
3.55 1,903
Offices (doctors, lawyers) in small
neighborhood shopping centers.
8.8%
(166)
10.4%
(196)
45.1%
(852)
23.7%
(447)
12.1%
(229)
3.20 1,890
Nursing homes, churches, or schools
in areas that are mostly individual
houses.
17.6%
(336)
13.0%
(248)
47.1%
(896)
15.6%
(297)
6.7%
(127)
2.81 1,904
Bars and nightclubs downtown. 43.3%
(831)
15.8%
(303)
31.4%
(602)
4.3%
(83)
5.1%
(98)
2.12 1,917
Restaurants and movie theaters
downtown
11.1%
(214)
9.7%
(187)
54.6%
(1,050)
15.9%
(306)
8.7%
(167)
3.01 1,924
Retail stores downtown 7.2%
(139)
5.4%
(103)
48.0%
(921)
24.1%
(462)
15.3%
(293)
3.35 1,918
In residential areas, home businesses
with no employees other than
residents of the house or apartment
that may include small-scale product
assembly or customer visits.
10.9%
(205)
8.1%
(152)
42.2%
(790)
22.7%
(426)
16.1%
(301)
3.25 1,874
Neighborhood markets or fresh
produce markets in residential areas.
4.1%
(79)
5.2%
(99)
26.1%
(497)
35.2%
(671)
29.3%
(559)
3.80 1,905
Auto repair downtown or in shopping
centers.
16.3%
(309)
14.7%
(280)
51.1%
(972)
12.2%
(231)
5.7%
(109)
2.76 1,901
Small city parks in residential areas. 3.0%
(57)
2.2%
(43)
23.9%
(459)
30.9%
(593)
40.0%
(768)
4.03 1,920
Attachment 1
PH2 - 20
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 14 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012
Public Facilities and Services
On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being less and 5 being more, just four areas were supported by the majority of respondents
seeking additional facilities and services: 50% would like more bicycle lanes, 58% support acquiring open space peaks and
hillsides, 53% support more land for creeks and marshes, while 54% support more land for City’s Greenbelt (see Table 11).
These were the very same items selected by respondents in 1988 with slight variations in support; 44% bike lanes, 54%
peaks and hillside preservation, 50% creeks and marshes, and 43% preservation of farm land.
Additional Facilities and Services, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 11.
1 2 3 4 5 Weighted
Average
Response
Count
Bicycle infrastructure (bike
lanes, paths and parking)
10.8%
(200)
6.3%
(116)
30.4%
(562)
19.8%
(366)
32.8%
(606)
3.57 1,850
Bus service – more routes and
more frequent service
8.2%
(150)
6.9%
(127)
45.7%
(838)
20.2%
(371)
19.0%
(349)
3.35 1,835
Traffic congestion management 7.2%
(130)
6.5%
(118)
42.0%
(761)
25.2%
(457)
19.2%
(348)
3.43 1,814
Neighborhood traffic
management
10.4%
(188)
10.0%
(181)
49.0%
(888)
16.8%
(305)
13.8%
(251)
3.14 1,813
Emergency services/disaster
readiness
6.9%
(126)
7.1%
(130)
50.4%
(920)
21.0%
(383)
14.6%
(266)
3.29 1,825
Flood prevention/control 10.3%
(187)
11.3%
(205)
55.6%
(1,012)
14.2%
(259)
8.6%
(157)
3.00 1,820
Preserving historic buildings 7.2%
(133)
9.9%
(182)
41.8%
(767)
22.8%
(419)
18.3%
(336)
3.35 1,837
Housing for low-income families 16.9%
(311)
11.3%
(208)
34.7%
(637)
20.5%
(376)
16.6%
(306)
3.09 1,838
Law enforcement:
Violence/thefts
5.3%
(96)
5.7%
(103)
47.1%
(856)
23.7%
(432)
18.3%
(332)
3.44 1,819
Law enforcement: Traffic safety 7.5%
(136)
8.5%
(155)
54.6%
(993)
17.4%
(316)
12.0%
(219)
3.18 1,819
Law enforcement:
Nuisances/zoning
13.4%
(242)
13.2%
(239)
46.2%
(835)
15.7%
(284)
11.5%
(207)
2.99 1,807
Acquiring and maintaining open
space for peaks & hillsides
7.4%
(137)
5.1%
(93)
29.5%
(543)
23.2%
(427)
34.8%
(640)
3.73 1,840
Acquiring and maintaining open
space for farm, ranchland
8.9%
(161)
9.5%
(172)
43.2%
(785)
18.7%
(340)
19.8%
(359)
3.31 1,817
Acquiring and maintaining open
space for creeks & marshes
5.9%
(108)
6.4%
(117)
34.7%
(635)
24.5%
(449)
28.4%
(520)
3.63 1,829
Acquiring and maintaining open
space for City greenbelt
6.9%
(125)
6.4%
(117)
32.7%
(596)
24.0%
(437)
30.0%
(547)
3.64 1,822
Parking and access choices
downtown
11.9%
(216)
9.5%
(172)
43.9%
(799)
19.9%
(361)
14.9%
(270)
3.16 1,818
Parks/playfields 6.2%
(113)
7.3%
(134)
46.9%
(859)
23.4%
(429)
16.1%
(295)
3.36 1,830
Performing arts 11.3%
(207)
10.8%
(199)
51.5%
(945)
16.3%
(300)
10.0%
(184)
3.03 1,835
Public art 17.0%
(311)
13.0%
(239)
46.0%
(843)
14.5%
(266)
9.4%
(173)
2.86 1,832
Attachment 1
PH2 - 21
2012 Community Survey
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 15
1 2 3 4 5 Weighted
Average
Response
Count
Recreation programs 7.4%
(134)
9.2%
(167)
51.2%
(933)
21.7%
(395)
10.6%
(194)
3.19 1,823
Shelter for homeless 17.4%
(320)
8.2%
(151)
27.3%
(504)
23.6%
(436)
23.5%
(433)
3.28 1,844
Sidewalk improvements and
pedestrian connections
7.1%
(130)
7.5%
(138)
41.8%
(764)
24.0%
(438)
19.6%
(358)
3.41 1,828
Street maintenance 3.9%
(72)
5.7%
(105)
46.2%
(847)
25.8%
(473)
18.3%
(335)
3.49 1,832
Street trees, landscaping along
streets
6.7%
(122)
7.6%
(138)
44.0%
(803)
24.2%
(443)
17.6%
(321)
3.38 1,827
Street widening/signals 13.9%
(252)
13.4%
(243)
44.6%
(807)
17.2%
(312)
10.9%
(197)
2.98 1,811
Transit service – routes and
frequency
9.7%
(173)
10.2%
(182)
46.0%
(823)
19.2%
(344)
14.9%
(267)
3.20 1,789
Despite support for some services, only a slight majority of respondents said they would support paying more for just two:
54% for open space for peaks and hillsides, and 52% for acquiring space for the City’s Greenbelt (see Table 12).
Support for Paying for More Services, San Luis Obispo 2012 Table 12.
Yes No Response Count
Bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, paths and parking) 48.7% (853) 51.3% (900) 1,753
Bus service – more routes and more frequent service 38.6% (649) 61.4% (1,031) 1,680
Traffic congestion management 37.6% (631) 62.4% (1,049) 1,680
Neighborhood traffic management 28.0% (455) 72.0% (1,171) 1,626
Emergency services/disaster readiness 41.7% (689) 58.3% (965) 1,654
Flood prevention/control 25.7% (418) 74.3% (1,210) 1,628
Preserving historic buildings 35.6% (605) 64.4% (1,094) 1,699
Housing for low-income families 35.9% (618) 64.1% (1,104) 1,722
Law enforcement: Violence/thefts 41.9% (701) 58.1% (972) 1,673
Law enforcement: Traffic safety 28.9% (479) 71.1% (1,180) 1,659
Law enforcement: Nuisances/zoning 24.1% (402) 75.9% (1,268) 1,670
Acquiring and maintaining open space for peaks & hillsides 54.1% (943) 45.9% (801) 1,744
Acquiring and maintaining open space for farm, ranchland 30.4% (508) 69.6% (1,163) 1,671
Acquiring and maintaining open space for creeks & marshes 49.3% (847) 50.7% (871) 1,718
Acquiring and maintaining open space for City greenbelt 51.6% (891) 48.4% (836) 1,727
Parking and access choices downtown 24.7% (417) 75.3% (1,268) 1,685
Parks/playfields 38.8% (655) 61.2% (1,033) 1,688
Performing arts 23.9% (397) 76.1% (1,266) 1,663
Public art 20.6% (345) 79.4% (1,329) 1,674
Recreation programs 33.0% (545) 67.0% (1,106) 1,651
Shelter for homeless 46.7% (820) 53.3% (935) 1,755
Sidewalk improvements and pedestrian connections 42.1% (709) 57.9% (977) 1,686
Street maintenance 42.4% (716) 57.6% (971) 1,687
Street trees, landscaping along streets 39.8% (666) 60.2% (1,008) 1,674
Street widening/signals 24.9% (411) 75.1% (1,237) 1,648
Transit service – routes and frequency 31.7% (520) 68.3% (1,121) 1,641
Attachment 1
PH2 - 22
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 16 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012
The 1988 survey showed support for paying more for bicycle paths, bus services, law enforcement, and performing arts
(63%). There was also support for public art, recreation, and parks and playfields.
Finally, we asked people to identify the services they would most like to see in the City. The responses were varied, but a
substantial number mentioned better services for homeless and increased transit options for air, bus, rail, and taxi
services.
Attachment 1
PH2 - 23
2012 Community Survey
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 17
Demographic Data
The vast majority of respondents indicated they live in the City of San Luis Obispo with a little less than half working or
owning a business in the City (Figure 6). Seventy-three percent of respondents own their dwelling with 27% renting.
Figure 6. Demographic Data, San Luis Obispo 2012
Attachment 1
PH2 - 24
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Page 18 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012
Relative to work status, just over 50% of respondents marked themselves as currently employed, with slightly over 36%
marking themselves as retired (see Figure 7).
Figure 7. Status, San Luis Obispo 2012
Attachment 1
PH2 - 25
Attachment 2
LUCE Outreach Overview
PH2 - 26
O UTREACH O VERVIEW
JUNE 20, 2014
Community Survey
20,700 copies of the survey were printed for distribution. Distribution was primarily done
through an insert distributed with the City’s utility bills (during the weeks of April 9, 16, 23
and 30) and by direct mail to those that do not receive utility bills. In all, surveys were sent
to more than 25,000 homes and businesses in the City. Approximately 2,030 people
returned their completed surveys by mail with an additional; 161 opting to take the survey
online.
Public Workshops (#signed in does not include staff and consultant team)
Future Fair 4 (May 31, 2014) > 88 signed-in
Future Fair 3 (December 7, 2013) > 125 signed-in
Future Fair 2 (June 1, 2013) > 130 signed-in
Future Fair (December 1, 2012) > 120 signed-in
Public Workshop #2 (September 27, 2012) > 40 signed-in
Public Workshop #1 (May 16, 2012) > 95 signed-in
Attendance exceeded numbers shown as “signed in”.
Promotion done for each workshop
Outreach at Thursday and Saturday Farmer’s Markets before events
News Releases and Media outreach to all local print, radio, and television outlets
Utility Bill Flyers – Ads/articles in advance of June and December 2013 Future Fairs and
separate flyer insert for May 2014 Future Fair
Flyer to all San Luis Coastal Unified School District school children for Workshop #2
Postcards for physical change areas for Workshop #5
Channel 20 slide (PSAs)
Posters on local buses
Display ads in local newspapers – Tribune, SLO CITY NEWS, and New Times
Community Calendar postings – KCBX and KSBY
Banner on library (Future Fairs)
Banner across Marsh Street for 2 weeks in advance of Future Fair 4
e-Blasts for all workshops (minimum 2 per event)
Media interviews with City Planning staff (most workshops, not all)
Neighborhood Open Houses
Six neighborhood open houses (July and September 2012)
Posters in 15+ locations within each sub-area
Display ads in paper
Request to Task Force members (posters provided) to inform neighbors and friends
Cal Poly Workshop
November 7, 2012
Attachment 2
PH2 - 27
Att2-Outreach Overview 2014 06 20 KEM.docx Page 2
City Council Meetings
January 28, 2014
January 14, 2014
January 7, 2014
October 15, 2013
April 2, 2013
October 16, 2012
April 20, 2012
March 20, 2012
March 13, 2012
March 6, 2012
January 17, 2012
Planning Commission Meetings
January 8, 2014
December 16, 2013
December 12, 2013
August 14, 2013
July 24, 2013
May 8, 2013
March 13, 2013
February 22, 2012
Task Force Meetings
#34, June 18, 2014
#33, February 19, 2014
#32, January 15, 2014
#31, December 10, 2013
#30, December 5, 2013
#29, December 4, 2013
#28, November 26, 2013
#27, November 25, 2013
#26, November 20, 2013
#25, November 14, 2013
#24, November 7, 2013
#23, November 6, 2013
#22, October 30, 2013
#21, October 24, 2013
#20, October 17, 2013
#19, October 16, 2013
#18, October 2, 2013
#17, September 18, 2013
#16, July 9, 2013
#15, July 1, 2013
#14, June 27, 2013
#13, June 19, 2013
#12, May 14, 2013
#11, April 30, 2013
#10, April 17, 2013
#9, March 7, 2013
#8, February 20, 2013
#7, January 16, 2013
#6, October 17, 2012
#5, September 19, 2012
#4, July 18, 2012
#3, June 20, 2012
#2, June 7, 2012
#1, April 18, 2012
Advisory Committee Meetings
Parks and Recreation Commission August 21,2013
Bicycle Advisory Committee July 18, 2013
Bicycle Advisory Committee September 19, 2013
Mass Transportation Commission July 10, 2013
Organization Outreach
Chamber of Commerce – LUCE sub-committee (City staff attended some)
Downtown Association (1 meeting + City staff attended some + Downtown Blasts to
members)
Latino Coalition (2 meetings)
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (2 meetings)
Neighbors North of Foothill (1 meeting)
Transition Towns (2 meetings)
Rotary (promotion of meetings)
Attachment 2
PH2 - 28
Att2-Outreach Overview 2014 06 20 KEM.docx Page 3
SLO Green Energy (1 meeting)
EcoSLO (1 meeting)
Faith-based organizations (notices to all)
e-Blasts
~ 60 e-Blast have been sent
~ 3,500 e-mail address are on the mailing list
Over 200,000 messages have been sent so far as part of the General Plan Update project
Newsletters
Newsletter 1, General Plan Update Overview, May 2012
Newsletter 2, Alternatives, June 2013
Website and Social Media
See attached summary.
MindMixer
Ran for six months from Fall 2012 – May 2013
240 registered participants
1,039 unique visitors
18,000 page views
> 230 ideas generated
Theater PSAs
12 weeks in Fall 2012 (November 2012 – January 2013)
Cinemark downtown – all screens (~ 20,000 impressions)
Spanish Language Outreach
Newsletter 1 translated into Spanish
Univision Spanish language PSAs on survey and workshop
Media releases to all area Spanish language outlets
Website page on Update
Outreach through Latino coalition
Interviews with City Leadership
The Consulting Team developed a set of five questions to be used in interviews with City
Council and Planning Commission members. During the week of March 19 – 23, the
Consulting Team’s management group conducted these individual interviews.
Interviews were conducted with City department heads to gain insight on SWOT.
Other Media
3-29-12 SLO CITY NEWS Article
4 -2012 City Staff interview aired on Channel 19 and Cal Poly Campus TV
11 -2012 California Edition – cable news channel interview re: LUCE Update
12-6-12 SLO CITY NEWS Article
Attachment 2
PH2 - 29
Att2-Outreach Overview 2014 06 20 KEM.docx Page 4
6-6-13 SLO CITY NEWS Article
10-18-13 Tribune Article (Summary of Council Action on Alternatives)
10-24-13 SLO CITY NEWS Article
1-18-14 Tribune Article (Summary of Council Action on Draft LUE)
6-11-14 KSBY Google Alert
Attachment 2
PH2 - 30
Att2-Outreach Overview 2014 06 20 KEM.docx Page 5
Attachment 2
PH2 - 31
Att2-Outreach Overview 2014 06 20 KEM.docx Page 6
Attachment 2
PH2 - 32
Att2-Outreach Overview 2014 06 20 KEM.docx Page 7
Attachment 2
PH2 - 33
Attachment 3
Resolution to Overrule ALUC
Determination with findings
and responses to Caltrans
and ALUC
PH2 - 34
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO OVERRULING THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC)
DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USE AND
CIRCULATION ELEMENT (LUCE) UPDATE AND RELATED
AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS ARE
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) and update its zoning regulations with policies to guide development
based on logical infill development 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
PH2 - 35
Attachment 3
description and ensure that its policies and programs reflect the goals and desires 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, as well as implementing zoning regulations amendments, 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 guidance of
the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook; and
WHEREAS, the LUCE Update does not adversely impact the public health,
welfare and safety or airport operations, based on said Compatibility Report, Guidelines
contained in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR certified by the City Council on September 16, 2014);
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
accurate data 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 13, 2014 for a determination as to whether the draft LUCE Update and
related Airport Overlay Zone zoning regulations amendments are consistent with the San
Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP); and
PH2 - 36
Attachment 3
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2014, the ALUC conducted a public hearing and
determined that the draft LUCE Update and implementing AOZ zoning amendments are
not consistent with the ALUP with regard to the types and densities of development that
could occur within portions of 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, consistent with Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code the
City has provided the ALUC and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics with a copy of the
City Council’s draft findings of Intent to Overrule at least 45 days prior to the final
decision to overrule.
WHEREAS, Comments which have been received from the ALUC and Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics have been duly considered and are included in the final record of
decision for the Council’s consideration to overrule.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby overrules the Airport Land Use
Commission’s findings of inconsistency based on the above recitals, which are hereby
adopted as findings of the Council, and the additional findings contained in Exhibit A
hereto, consistent with Section 21676(b) of the State Aeronautics Act.
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. Exhibit B and Exhibit C to this Resolution include the
comments received from the ALUC and CalTrans and the City’s responses and are
incorporated into and are relied upon as a basis for this Resolution.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk
shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Upon motion of Councilmember ______, seconded by Councilmember
_______, and on the following roll call vote:
PH2 - 37
Attachment 3
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 21st day of October 2014.
Mayor Jan Marx
Attest:
_______________________
Anthony J. Mejia, CMC
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
_______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH2 - 38
Attachment 3
Exhibit A
1
Exhibit A
Resolution ______
Findings for the City of San Luis Obispo’s Overrule of the Airport Land Use
Commission’s Determination that the Draft Land Use and Circulation
Element (LUCE) Update and associated Airport Overlay Zoning
Regulations are Inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan
1. The policies and programs of the 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, provides the substantive information that bridges the analytical gap between
the raw data and ultimate decision regarding the proposed LUCE policies. The
Compatibility Report, together with the LUCE Update and provisions of the Airport
Overlay Zoning regulations demonstrate that the proposed LUCE Update is consistent
with the purposes of the statutes as set forth in Section 21670 et seq. of the State
Aeronautics Act (SAA), as set forth in Division 9 (Aviation) of the Public Utilities
Code (PUC).
2. Section 21670(a) establishes legislative findings that it is in the best interest of the
public to provide for the orderly development of:
a. “...each public use airport in this state ....”
b. “...the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and
objectives of the California noise standards...” and
c. “...the area surrounding these airports...to prevent the creation of new noise and
safety problems.”
In that context, the statute provides that its purpose is“...to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare by ensuring…”:
d. “…the orderly expansion of airport ....”
e. “.by ...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.”
3. Although findings are not required to address each of these public interests and
statutory purposes point by point, collectively, all are addressed in the following
findings and demonstrate that the LUCE Update, including the provisions of the
Airport Overlay Zoning regulations, are consistent with the public interest and the
purposes of the Act.
PH2 - 39
Attachment 3
Exhibit A
2
4. 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).
5. 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 and, in some instances, have been acknowledged by the ALUC. The
data developed by the City demonstrates the ALUP to be flawed and outdated, with
policies that are not supported by objectively verifiable data. . The LUCE update was
developed in reliance of verifiable factual and technical data and adopted airport
operations data. The LUCE update proposes to vary from land use designations and
restrictions contained in the adopted ALUP only to the extent consistent with guidance
from the Airport Land Use Handbook and the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act.
6. 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 to be consistent with actual
aircraft accident and safety risk analysis research as originally published in the
Handbook by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics in 1992, expanded and revalidated
in 2002, and further expanded and revalidated in 2011.
7. 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 pursuant to a San Luis Obispo County-adopted airport
master plan, environmental assessment (EA)/environmental impact report (EIR) and
depicted on the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The ALUC has
acknowledged that the ALUP requires update and has begun the process to do so.
8. State law requires ALUPs to be consistent with the Airport Master Plan (AMP) or the
FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The San Luis Obispo AMP and ALP
reflect the same County-adopted, long-range development plan for the Airport, while
the existing ALUP is not consistent with the AMP or the ALP. Thus, the ALUP does
not accurately incorporate verifiable airport operations and planning data and,
therefore, does not provide an objectively verifiable basis on which to develop and
impose airport noise and land use restrictions within the City. The land use
designations, restrictions and performance standards set forth in the LUCE and AOZ
account for and respect the foregoing data to protect the public health, safety and
welfare, reasonably foreseeable airport operations and orderly expansion of the airport.
PH2 - 40
Attachment 3
Exhibit A
3
9. ALUCs are not empowered to determine what the future airfield configuration, airport
role, or activity levels will be. State statutes direct that an ALUP must be based upon
an Airport Master Plan.
10. 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 vary significantly from recommended safety zones
of the Handbook without a nexus to factors which would warrant adjustment of the
safety zones as recommended in the Handbook Table 3A adjustment factors. The
ALUP safety zones do not directly correlate to actual aircraft accident and safety risk
analysis research as originally published in the Handbook by Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics in 1992, expanded and revalidated in 2002 and further expanded and
revalidated in 2011. A review of accident data at San Luis Obispo airport shows that
virtually all accidents have occurred in recommended Handbook safety zones. The
LUCE policies in combination with the AOZ provide a framework that uses the ALUP
as a standard of review for zones S-1a and the RPZ and uses guidance from the
Handbook for the areas of overrule in zones S-1b, s-1c and S-2, relying on verifiable
data to protect the public health and safety while also protecting future airport
operations.
11. 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 guidance in an open and
collaborative manner based on factual information and realistic airport operations
scenarios. While the ALUC, acknowledges, in some instances, that revisions,
corrections and updates consistent with changed circumstances and verifiable data are
needed, such an update has not been completed in a relevant timeframe for completion
and scope of the ALUC’s current ALUP update process remain uncertain.
12. The policies and programs set forth in the proposed LUCE Update and implementing
Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) are based upon guidance from 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. The AOZ reflects the boundaries and safety zones
contained in the ALUP and contains land use and development requirements,
restrictions and performance standards supported by verifiable data and consistent
with Handbook guidance and the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act.
13. 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 guidance of the Caltrans Handbook’s policies,
recommendations, analysis and research relating to safety, overflight, airspace
PH2 - 41
Attachment 3
Exhibit A
4
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 Compatibility 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 are based on substantial evidence and are
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 protect public health, welfare and safety and existing and future airport
operations.
14. The LUCE Update and implementing Airport Overlay Zoning regulations incorporate
and are fully consistent with the current Caltrans Handbook standards for addressing
safety, noise, and 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. The LUCE and Airport Overlay Zone reflect the ALUP safety zones
and incorporate land use limitations in zones RPZ and S-1a. For limited areas outside
of approved specific plans within the ALUP, the City has incorporated land use
designations and development standards consistent with the Caltrans Handbook
density and intensity of use guidance to safety zones S-1b, S-1c and S-2 to ensure
safety and compatibility of existing and proposed land uses and to prevent future
development of incompatible land uses.
15. 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 are consistent with the ALUP safety
zones RPZ and S-1a and portions of S-1b and S-1c as reflected in approved specific
plans found consistent with the ALUP. Outside of these areas, the LUCE policies,
programs and implementation through the AOZ 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
PH2 - 42
Attachment 3
Exhibit A
5
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 and use the FAA-approved Airport Master
Plan forecasts of aviation activity as 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.
16. 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
protects public health, welfare and safety and existing and future 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), which reflects the boundaries
and Safety Zones in the current ALUP. 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, providing that “each zone should be as compact as
possible.” The City’s LUCE and the AOZ accomplish this ideal by incorporating
policies, programs and development standards consistent with those guidelines, while
reflecting the existing ALUP safety zone configurations until the ALUC has
completed its update of the ALUP and associated environmental analysis.
Furthermore, the City, unlike the ALUP, is reflecting noise contours in the Noise
Element and AOZ which are consistent 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) and using 60 dB CNEL as the limit for residential
development – a more conservative standard than the California airport noise standard
in Section 5000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations (Title 21, Division 2.5,
Chapter 6).
17. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670(a)(b), the Policies and Programs
contained in the 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.
18. The LUCE update and implementing Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ), provide for a
progression of land use density and intensity, outside of the RPZ and S-1a and specific
plan areas, 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 LUCE update and associated
PH2 - 43
Attachment 3
Exhibit A
6
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.
19. 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 and address land use designations and
development standards within the City consistent with the City’s local land use
authority. Moreover, neither the LUCE nor the AOZ propose to establish new Airport
Safety Zones or Airport Safety Zones that differ from the ALUP Safety Zones. In fact,
the AOZ refers to the ALUP Safety Zones, and defers to the ALUP relative to uses
within Zones RPZ and S-1a, where the City finds that land use restrictions consistent
with those included in the ALUP are reasonably supported by factual information and
verifiable data. The City’s action to overrule the ALUC’s determination of
inconsistency is limited to noise standards and land uses that the City finds should be
permissible within portions of ALUP Safety Zones S-1B, S-2 and S-1C. In addition,
all future projects involving a legislative act, such as a general plan amendment,
specific plan or zone change, will be subject to referral to the ALUC for an ALUP
consistency determination, as reflected in the Land Use Element Chapter 7 and
implementing Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.030(C).
20. The ALUP contains land use criteria for an S-1b Maneuvering Zone and S-1c 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). The City
finds that the ALUC has provided no verifiable facts or data supporting the necessity
of the ALUP’s land use restrictions related to the configuration to protect public
health, safety or welfare or existing or future airport operations. The City further finds
that the City’s overrule of the ALUC’s inconsistency determination in order to
implement the LUCE update and AOZ standards for land use within these areas within
the City is supported by factual and objectively verifiable data that demonstrates that
the permissible land uses and restrictions and applicable noise standards contained in
the LUCE and the AOZ are appropriate and protect the public health, safety and
welfare and existing and future airport operations.
21. The City finds that the application of unnecessary land use restrictions that are not
substantiated by verifiable data is not in the community’s interest because such
unjustified restrictions limit the City’s ability to accommodate desired infill growth
and to accomplish smart growth and environmental protection objectives of the City.
Therefore, the City will opt to exercise its rights under Public Utilities Code Section
21676(b) to overrule the ALUC’s inconsistency determination with regard to the land
use criteria for zones 1B, S-2 and S-1C, outside of existing specific plans previously
found by the ALUC to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. The City’s
PH2 - 44
Attachment 3
Exhibit A
7
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 purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and
consistent with guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook as
evidenced in the analysis shown in the Airport Compatibility Report incorporated by
reference.
22. 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.
Nonetheless, the LUCE and implementing AOZ reflect and do not attempt to redefine
the existing ALUP safety zone configurations, recognizing that the ALUC is in the
process of its update of the ALUP and associated environmental analysis. Evaluation
and recommendations listed in Section 9 of the Compatibility Report indicate that
compliance with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidance for
uses appropriate to each safety zone meets the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act
§21674.7(b) direction to protect public safety and to discourage incompatible land
uses around the airport.
23. 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, which incorporates milestones of
short, intermediate, and long term aviation activity, indicates when facilities will
respond to aviation activity in addition to the anticipated forecast horizon.
24. 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 support the ultimate physical development of the Airport, which is shown
in the County-adopted Master Plan and on the FAA-approved ALP. The City’s
PH2 - 45
Attachment 3
Exhibit A
8
preferred use of the SBP Master Plan Update forecast for purposes of long-term noise
impacts instead of the unsubstantiated noise contours in the ALUP 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 consider and reflect planning policies, objectives
and land use regulations consistent with the AMP.
25. 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 150/5070-6B, 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 and have been used 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 Overlay Zone (AOZ) Regulations
Provide Adequate Protection for Noise, Safety, Overflight and Airspace Protection
Noise
26. The City is concerned that incorporation into the LUCE of limitations on new
residential and other noise sensitive uses to areas outside the 55 dB CNEL noise
contour without adequate data to support such limitations 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 urban and suburban areas 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 guidance provided in Table 4B in the California
PH2 - 46
Attachment 3
Exhibit A
9
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which indicates that 60 dB is suitable for new
development around most airports and is particularly appropriate in mild climates
where windows are often open.
27. 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 any factual or data supported 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 reflected in the existing ALUP or to
support related land use restrictions. 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) requiring that the ALUP be based
upon the most recent Airport Master Plan. Therefore, incorporation of the ALUP
noise contours and related development restrictions into the LUCE update and
associated Airport Overlay Zone implementation to 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 guidance provided in the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook Chapters 3 and 4.
28. Table 4B, 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.”
29. The City’s proposed airport noise standard for new residential uses is 60 dB CNEL,
consistent with the guidance of the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
recommendations for urban and suburban 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).
30. 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 7.0d 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
PH2 - 47
Attachment 3
Exhibit A
10
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).
31. 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.
32. 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, or capacity of
existing or proposed support facilities resulting in an unrealistic and vastly over-stated
noise impact. The polices, programs and development standards in the City’s LUCE
and AOZ are 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 guidance from the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Chapters 3 and 4.
33. Seventy-five percent of all aircraft noise complaints collected by County Airport
officials over the last five years were generated by three individuals as provided in a
report from County Airport staff via a public records act request from the City of San
Luis Obispo.
34. 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. The City’s application of a 60 db noise standard for
residential uses is below the 65 db CNEL aircraft noise contour, which is the FAA
standard for urban residential areas defined as “noise problem” airports.
PH2 - 48
Attachment 3
Exhibit A
11
35. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors has 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
36. 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 § 21683 and 21688.
37. 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 by deferring to the
ALUP. 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.
38. 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 17.57.090. This
section calls out open land areas already planned for and secured in addition to open
land objectives for areas within the ALUP boundaries. .
39. 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 County Regional Airport. Airport Overlay Zone Chapter 17.57 reflects
the ALUP safety zones and associated land use standards for the RPZ and S-1a zones
and areas within current specific plans that have been found consistent with the ALUP.
The land use standards for the limited areas within Safety Zones S-1b, S-1c and S-2
outside of those areas described in the previous sentence are consistent with guidance
from Chapter 4 of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook safety zones 1-
6 and land use limitations.
PH2 - 49
Attachment 3
Exhibit A
12
40. 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 LUCE
update and associated implementation through an Airport Overlay Zone applies the
ALUP safety zone boundaries and uses limitations within those boundaries consistent
with the ALUP in the RPZ and S-1a zones and as recommended by the Handbook
guidance (See Handbook, Pages 4-20 through 4-25) for limited portions of the S-1b, S-
1c and S-2 safety zones until the ALUC has completed its update of the ALUP and
associated environmental analysis. When the ALUP is updated, the City will submit
the General Plan to the ALUC for a determination of consistency. Should the ALUC
determine the adopted General Plan to be inconsistent, the City will evaluate the
underlying technical information that supports any changes to the ALUP and make an
informed determination based on verifiable data whether 1) any changes to the general
plan should be adopted and/or 2) consider other actions authorized under the State
Aeronautics Act.
41. 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). However, the LUCE Update and the
AOZ reflect and do not propose to alter the existing ALUP safety zone configurations,
recognizing that the ALUC is in the process of updating its ALUP and completing and
associated environmental analysis.
42. 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
recommended guidance in the Handbook . However, the LUCE Update and the AOZ
reflect and do not propose to alter the existing ALUP safety zone configurations,
recognizing that the ALUC is in the process of updating its ALUP and completing and
associated environmental analysis. LUCE Policies and the adoption of the Airport
Overlay Zone provide both a policy frame work and standards for development to
PH2 - 50
Attachment 3
Exhibit A
13
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 reflects the
safety zones identified in the ALUP and takes into account existing and proposed
facilities identified in the Airport Master Plan (AMP) in establishing standards for
development in limited portions of the S-1b, S-1c and S-2 safety zones to ensure that
future development will only be allowed in areas that minimize risk to public health
and safety and are consistent with guidance from the Handbook.
Airspace Protection
43. 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 and directly referencing
the ALUP. 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
guidance from Handbook Chapter 3 and directly referencing the ALUP. Building
permits for such structures require the filing of a 7460 form with the FAA and 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.
44. 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, glare,
sources of dust, steam, heat or smoke, sources of electrical interference and features
that attract birds through direct reference to Section 4.5 of the ALUP. These standards
are consistent with the Airspace Protection and Hazards to Flight guidelines beginning
on Page 4-34 of the Handbook and with the ALUP therefore provide for airspace
protection that minimizes public health and safety consistent with the State
Aeronautics Act.
Overflight
45. Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.080 includes a direct reference to the ALUP for
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 -
PH2 - 51
Attachment 3
Exhibit A
14
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.
46. 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.
Reference availability:
Airport Land Use Compatibility Report, and Final Compatibility Report Dated August 11, 2014.
Noise Complaints referenced in Finding 33 available as Council Reading Materials on File with
City Clerk’s office.
www.slo2035.com
PH2 - 52
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 14, 2014
TO: City Council
FROM: Derek Johnson, Director, Community Development Department
PREPARED BY: Nick Johnson, Johnson Aviation
Dorota Skrzypek, Johnson Aviation
Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Community Development Department
SUBJECT: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RESPONSE TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
COMMENTS LETTER REGARDING THE CITY’S INTENT TO OVERRULE
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO 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
Discussion
The City received a letter from the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) on September 18, 2014 in response to the City’s letter to the ALUC on August 20, 2014
transmitting the City’s proposed intent to overrule the ALUC determination of inconsistency
pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b). It is important to point out that the City
appreciates the message that was conveyed in the cover letter to the ALUC comments. This
cover letter was a short but sincere outcome of a very productive meeting held between the
ALUC and the City to begin moving toward a balanced airport land use plan that protects the
airport investment while meeting the City’s other land use and circulation considerations.
The ALUC will also find that the City has made a significant adjustment in its proposed
approach to its Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update and associated Airport
Overlay Zoning (AOZ) Regulations to limit the scope of its overrule of the ALUC’s
determination of inconsistency with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). This revised approach
is covered fully within the final Findings document prepared and considered for adoption by a
2/3’s vote on October 21, 2014.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 53
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 2
Despite the positive signals coming from the ALUC about future efforts to find common ground,
the ALUC did transmit a 65-page letter and many additional attachments as its response to the
City’s Intent to Overrule the ALUC’s determination that the LUCE Update and associated AOZ
Regulations are inconsistent with the ALUP. The letter by the ALUC raises a number of
concerns and makes many factual and legal misstatements that it is necessary to address each
point for the administrative record. The purpose of this report is to provide factual information
and the proper legal standard of review for local jurisdictions considering overrule of an ALUC
determination.
To aid in understanding of the legal standard of review, Lori Ballance with Gatzke Dillon and
Ballance, LLP, a land use and environmental attorney specializing in California Airport Land
Use issues has been retained by the City. Ms. Ballance provided legal guidance to Caltrans in
the development of the 2011 update of the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(Handbook). Because of her expertise in this area of law, we have asked that she summarize for
ease of public reference the statutory framework surrounding the ALUC consistency and
overrule process. In response, Lori has provided a memo titled, “Public Memorandum
Regarding LUCE Overrule Process.” This memo is important to the review of the process and
framework issues raised by the ALUC and is intended to aid the ALUC in understanding the
City’s revised approach and the Council and the public in evaluating the issues raised and the
City’s responses to those issues. In responding to the ALUC’s comments related to the legal
requirements we have referenced Ms. Ballance’s memo (Attachment A to City Response to
Caltrans Comments) additional support for the City’s position on the matter.
SPECIFIC ISSUES
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.
Response 1: The City fully supports the critical role that the Airport plays in the City’s
economy and transportation infrastructure. See Chapter 11 of the LUCE Update and discussion
in the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan where it states, “The airport is an important
factor in the desire future of the area and vitality of the business parks envisioned.”1
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
1 Economic Development Strategic Plan, pages 17
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 54
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 3
commissions (ALUCs) in all counties containing an airport served by a scheduled airline or an
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).
Response 2: The City fully acknowledges the purview and code sections regarding formation of
the ALUC and its role, as well as the intent of the Public Utilities Code to ensure land uses
around airports address safety and noise concerns as well as the desire to ensure the orderly
expansion of the airport.
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).
Response 3: The City is aware of the ALUC’s power and duty to develop an ALUP as well as
the requirement that the ALUP be based upon the latest Airport Master Plan/Layout Plan which
projects anticipated growth of the airport.
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 Margarita Specific Plan Area.
Response 4: The City acknowledges the ALUP currently in place includes the Margarita Area
Specific Plan but does not address the latest Airport Master Plan.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 55
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 4
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.
Response 5: The City provided the resources and staff to work with the ALUC subcommittee in
attempting to put the graphic depiction of safety zones into a GIS format at no cost to the ALUC.
This was just the first step in the process to understand where ALUP safety zones deviated from
Handbook zones, and to initiate discussions with the ALUC regarding reasons for adjustments,
underlying land use restrictions, noise contours that appeared to not be based on the Airport
Master Plan (AMP) among other things. The purpose of these discussions was to assist the
ALUC in updating its plan based on facts and professional planning advice with the objective of
consistency with the State Aeronautics Act.
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 ALUP to make the
ALUP 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).
Response 6: The general results of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was the
recommendation to resolve four primary areas with the ALUC:
a. ALUP Maneuvering Zone S-1b size and land use criteria, which are more restrictive than
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria.
b. ALUP Sideline Zone S-1c size and land use criteria, which are more restrictive than
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria.
c. ALUP Zone S-2 size and land use criteria, which are more restrictive than California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria.
d. ALUP aircraft noise contours and associated land use criteria, which are more restrictive
than California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria, and not
based on the forecasts provided in the Airport Master Plan Update (2005) and the
subsequent EA/EIR prepared for the AMP update.
These were not “significant” changes, nor were these changes meant to align the ALUP with the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Report, Airport Area Chapter (Chapter 7) of the LUCE Update,
or the Airport Overlay Zone Chapter (Chapter 17.57) of the Zoning Ordinance Update. Rather,
they were changes that the City hoped would better align the ALUP Update with the 2005
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 56
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 5
Airport Master Plan Update, the 2006 EA/EIR, and guidance from the 2011 California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook). These changes would "bring the policies and
objectives of the ALUP closer to compliance with the City of SLO General Plan". However, they
would also bring the ALUP closer to compliance with the 2005 Airport Master Plan Update, the
2006 EA/EIR, and the 2011 Handbook.
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.
Response 7: The City has reached out to the ALUC for over two years to bring ideas that better
align the ALUP with the 2005 Airport Master Plan Update, the 2006 EA/EIR, and the 2011
Handbook to the table for consideration. The ALUC has refused to compromise on any ideas to
date. After numerous informal requests, the City made a Public Records Act request of both the
ALUC and Caltrans to attempt to review a copy of the proposed update to the ALUC’s Airport
Land Use Plan (ALUP). Despite these efforts by the City to participate in the ALUP update
process in an informed way, both the ALUC and Caltrans refused to provide a copy of the ALUP
update. Only after the City announced its intent to overrule the ALUC determination on the
LUCE did the ALUC finally make a public release of a copy of their draft ALUP.
Unfortunately, this course of action did not demonstrate the open and inclusive planning process
in which the City had hoped to participate.
The City has long attempted to approach the discussion in a collaborative manner. In February
2010, the City explored with the Department of Transportation whether CAAP funds were
available to update the ALUP only to find that all three grant programs had been suspended and
the DOT was unsure about future grant funds. At the same time, the City requested to be
involved with the ALUC through the update process to ensure the City’s perspectives were
represented. This process started with discussions regarding the Chevron project and Airport
Area Specific Plan update (AASP) and the hiring of Johnson Aviation to assist with the ALUP
update process. The City met with a subcommittee of the ALUC in September 2010, and April
and August 2011 to work through the Chevron/AASP plan. With resolution of the particular
project (through Chevron’s agreement to flatten some of the tank berms in addition to the already
required 250 acres of open space), the ALUC’s initial action to update the plan was abandoned.
ALUC meetings between March and September 2012 were cancelled. In April 2012, City staff
initiated a meeting with the ALUC subcommittee and an applicant for the Avila Ranch project to
again request clarification of safety zone locations for purposes of determining constraints for the
LUCE update and to understand to what standards the Avila Ranch property would be held in a
rezoning application. The ALUC subcommittee indicated that residential uses on the Avila
Ranch property would not be supported by the ALUC under any circumstances (despite being
located in Safety Zone 2) and terminated the meeting.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 57
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 6
City staff attended ALUC meetings and continued to request update of the ALUP as well as meet
with County staff support to the ALUC to understand how the City and County could collaborate
on the effort. Meetings were attended by City staff in May, June, August, and October 2012.
During the months of November and December 2012, the City provided GIS staff and Nick
Johnson of Johnson Aviation to support to the ALUC subcommittees to work through a draft
document prepared by a Commissioner that provided the calculus defining the safety zones. City
staff expressed concerns about locations of the zones as they shifted in significant ways from the
graphic map depicted in the ALUP. The City provided testimony in meetings with the ALUC as
it considered the new maps (now in GIS format) as well as the assumptions behind the noise
contours in February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, and October 2013. In
November 2013, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Staff met with County and City staff, and
members of the ALUC subcommittee. They cautioned the City in not following ALUP
limitations and clarified that the ALUP noise contours needed to be based upon the AMP.
Throughout all of the meetings with the subcommittee and the full ALUC, ALUC members
discounted the technical information provided by Johnson Aviation and declined to consider or
question the basis for the safety zones proposed in the Dimensional Detail document prepared by
one of the Commissioners.
Beginning in 2014, the ALUC subcommittee met in private and provided no access to the draft
under development for public review despite public records act requests by the City. Currently,
the ALUC wishes to update the noise contours for the ALUP in order to complete the update to
the ALUP. The City has provided the noise contours from the AMP EIR using the same
assumptions regarding operations, time of day, fleet mix etc. in the latest INM model for the
ALUC’s use. The AMP provides a conservative approach to potential noise impacts for future
planning and would enable the ALUC to complete the draft ALUP to enable environmental
review as well as full public review. In summary, the City has tried to assist the ALUC in
ensuring the ALUP is based upon a strong technical foundation, with data to support the policy
framework, but has been rebuffed at every point along the way.
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).
Response 8: The City referred the documents in accordance with 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.
Response 9: The City is not required to freeze frame its GP/zoning ordinances and development
projects while the ALUC updates its ALUP. As indicated above, the ALUC initiated its ALUP
Update over two years ago and it is not clear when the ALUP (and associated CEQA
compliance) will be complete. The City’s referral and overrule is not premature. The City has
reached out to the ALUC for over two years to bring ideas that better align the ALUP with the
2005 Airport Master Plan Update, the 2006 EA/EIR, and the 2011 Handbook to the table for
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 58
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 7
consideration. The ALUC has refused to compromise on any ideas or be informed by technical
information. After numerous friendly requests, the City was forced to make a Public Records Act
request of both the ALUC and Caltrans (2-26-14 and 3-24-14 respectively) to attempt to simply
review a copy of the proposed update to the ALUC’s Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Despite
these extraordinary lengths by the City to participate in the ALUP update process, both the
ALUC and Caltrans refused to provide a copy of the ALUP update. Only after the City
announced its intent to overrule the ALUC determination on the LUCE did the ALUC finally
make a public release of a copy of their draft ALUP. This approach does not demonstrate an
open and inclusive planning process.
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 defacto 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.
Response 10: The City has not developed a de facto airport land use compatibility plan for SBP.
Rather, it is proceeding with an overrule in those areas within the City that are inconsistent with
the ALUP policies, as provided by law. The CDD did not indicate that project-specific overrides
would be forthcoming because the LUCE process is a General Plan update and policies and
programs apply city-wide. The particular areas of physical change were shared with the ALUC
sub-committee and publicly posted (as have been all staff reports, minutes, workshop summaries,
background reports, PowerPoints, and Task Force proceedings related to the LUCE process).
The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the
airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated technical information on
the progress of airport development and operations since the completion of the most recent San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the current ALUP does
not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical information system (GIS)
mapping of the Airport’s safety zones, noise impact areas and overflight areas, which the current
ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours provided in the ALUP are cited as being based
on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001 (which cannot be located), not on the 2006 EA/EIR
completed for the Airport Master Plan Update. The City and the San Luis Obispo County Airport
Land Use Commission (ALUC) have been trying to reconcile differences since 2012 between the
details of the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), the Draft Dimensional Detail of Airport Safety
Zones document, and compatible land use zoning within the City limits. The City assisted the
ALUC in accurately mapping the assumptions behind the adopted ALUP zones into a GIS
format to provide a basis for discussion and suggestions for an update to the ALUP that would
balance the interests of the ALUC, the City, and the County. However, to date the ALUC has
refused any compromise.
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 defacto plan as evidenced by the
following provisions contained therein: [Legislative Draft is shown]
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 59
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 8
Policies in this section apply to the Airport Area, as shown in Figure 8 and represent the
Airport Influence Area subject to airport safety, noise, height, and overflight standards
(italics added).
Airport Land Use Plan
Land use density and intensity shall carefully balance noise impacts and the progression
in the degree of reduced safety risk further away from the runways consistent with
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines. The City shall use the
Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity as a reasonably foreseeable projection
of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for long- term land use planning purposes.
Development should be permitted only if it is consistent with the San Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Plan.
Response 11: This is consistent with guidance from the Handbook and what the ALUC is using
for its ALUP Update (see statements by ALUC above). Figure 8 has been modified to
correspond to the boundaries of the ALUP safety zones and LUCE Policy 7.3.3 above has been
edited to refer to guidance form the SLO County Regional Airport Land Use Plan, State
Aeronautics Act, and the Handbook.
Airport Safety Zones
Airport Safety Zones shall be consistent with California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook guidelines and substantiated by the San Luis Obispo County Airport Master
Plan activity forecasts as used for noise planning purposes.
Response 12: This is consistent with the Handbook and what the ALUC is using for its ALUP
Update (see statements by ALUC above). Based on guidance from Caltrans and the ALUC, the
City is not overruling the geographical boundaries of the ALUP safety zones but rather is
overruling the land use policies within limited areas of safety zones S1-b, S-1c and S-2. This is
reflected in edited policy language in Chapter 7 of the Land Use Element.
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 standards) as the threshold for new
urban residential areas. Interiors of new residential structures shall be constructed to
meet a maximum 45 db CNEL.
Response 13: This is consistent with the guidance in the Handbook and direction by Caltrans
staff (to base noise contours on the adopted AMP).
County Airport Land Use Plan
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 60
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 9
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 City'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 po licies 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) (This section contains the
only reference to the ALUC’s ALUP within Chapter 7 of the LUCE Update).
Response 14: This is consistent with the guidance in the Handbook and provisions of Public
Utilities Code. The City will continue to work with the ALUC to bring technical information
and data to the ALUP update discussion in the hopes that the LUCE and the updated ALUP can
find more common ground.
NEW PROGRAMS
Airport Overlay Zone
The City shall create an Airport Overlay Zone category to codify airport
compatibility criteria identified in the general plan for those areas located within the
Airport Influence Area consistent with the requirements of the California State
Aeronautics Act (Cal. Pub. Utilities Code, Section 21670. et seq.) which establishes
statewide requirements for airport land use compatibility planning, 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 requirements, and other related federal and state requirements
relating to airport land use compatibility planning.
Implementation of the compatibility policies will be accompanied through the Airport
Land Use Zoning Code (italics added).
Response 15: The Handbook specifically references Airport Overlay Zones as an appropriate
tool to supplement traditional zoning and development standards to reflect safety and noise
considerations specific to aviation activity. This program has been updated to develop an AOZ
which reflects the boundaries of the ALUP.
Response 16: The City has not developed a de facto airport land use compatibility plan for
SBP. Rather, it is proceeding with an overrule in those areas that are inconsistent with the ALUP
policies as required by law. The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to
establish the basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General
Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated
technical information on the progress of airport development and operations since the completion
of the most recent San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which
the current ALUP does not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical
information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport’s safety zones, noise impact areas and
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 61
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 10
overflight areas, which the current ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours cited in the
ALUP indicate they are based on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001, not on the 2006
EA/EIR completed for the Airport Master Plan Update. The City and the San Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) have been trying to reconcile differences since
2012 between the details of the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), the Draft Dimensional Detail of
Airport Safety Zones document, and compatible land use zoning within the City limits. The City
assisted the ALUC in accurately mapping the assumptions behind the adopted ALUP zones into
a GIS format to provide a basis for discussion and suggestions for an update to the ALUP that
would balance the interests of the ALUC, the City, and the County. However, the ALUC has
refused any compromise.
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 defacto airport land use compatibility plan and that such a plan is
violates 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 ALUCs
in a manner consistent with the law, and authorizes only them to formulate and
adopt ALUCPs (italics added).
Response 17: The most obvious outcome of a local agency's overruling is that the proposed
action (approval of the LUCE) takes effect just as if the ALUC had approved it or found it
consistent with the compatibility plan. There is no prohibition against an agency overruling an
ALUP at the General Plan (GP) level. The City is not usurping the ALUC's power. In fact, the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Report proved that there were many areas of agreement between
the ALUC and the City. The general, the results of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report
was the recommendation to resolve four primary areas with the ALUC:
a. ALUP Maneuvering Zone S-1b size and land use criteria, which are more
restrictive than California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and
criteria.
b. ALUP Sideline Zone S-1c size and land use criteria, which are more restrictive
than California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria.
c. ALUP Zone S-2 size and land use criteria, which are more restrictive than
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria.
d. ALUP aircraft noise contours and associated land use criteria, which are more
restrictive than California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 62
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 11
criteria, and not based on the forecasts provided in the Airport Master Plan
Update (2005) and the subsequent EA/EIR prepared for the AMP update.
The City has not developed a de facto airport land use compatibility plan for SBP. The purpose
of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the airport-area
policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element
(LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated technical information on the progress of
airport development and operations since the completion of the most recent San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the current ALUP does not provide.
Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical information system (GIS) mapping of
the Airport’s safety zones, noise impact areas and overflight areas, which the current ALUP also
does not provide. The noise contours provided in the ALUP are based on a Brown Buntin Study
completed in 2001, not on the 2006 EA/EIR completed for the Airport Master Plan Update. The
City and the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) have been trying
to reconcile differences since 2012 between the details of the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), the
Draft Dimensional Detail of Airport Safety Zones document, and compatible land use zoning
within the City limits. The City assisted the ALUC in accurately mapping the assumptions
behind the adopted ALUP zones into a GIS format to provide a basis for discussion and
suggestions for an update to the ALUP that would balance the interests of the ALUC, the City,
and the County. However, the ALUC has refused any compromise.
The City has amended the figure in Chapter 7 of the Land Use Element to reflect the boundaries
of the ALUP and has amended provisions in the AOZ to address the ALUP. The overrule is
limited in scope to land use provisions in limited areas of Safety Zones S-1b, S-1c, and S-2
outside of specific plan areas previously found by the ALUC to be consistent with the ALUP. In
addition, provisions in the Land Use Element and AOZ directly reference the required referral
process to the ALUC for General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning changes. No action by the city
is usurping the role of the ALUC, but rather the city is availing itself of the provisions in the
Public Utilities Code to overrule the determination of inconsistency.
13. No local land use agency within the state has ever adopted such a defacto airport land use
compatibility plan within its general plan or zoning ordinance.
Response 18: The aeronautics act clearly authorizes an overrule at the GP level. The City has
not developed a de facto airport land use compatibility plan for SBP. The purpose of the Airport
Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the airport-area policies chapter in
the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update.
The Report also provides updated technical information on the progress of airport development
and operations since the completion of the most recent San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
(SBP) Master Plan Update, which the current ALUP does not provide. Supporting this updated
information is accurate graphical information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport’s safety
zones, noise impact areas and overflight areas, which the current ALUP also does not provide.
The noise contours provided in the ALUP are based on a Brown Buntin Study completed in
2001, not on the 2006 EA/EIR completed for the Airport Master Plan Update. The City and the
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) have been trying to reconcile
differences since 2012 between the details of the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), the Draft
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 63
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 12
Dimensional Detail of Airport Safety Zones document, and compatible land use zoning within
the City limits. The City assisted the ALUC in accurately mapping the assumptions behind the
adopted ALUP zones into a GIS format to provide a basis for discussion and suggestions for an
update to the ALUP that would balance the interests of the ALUC, the City, and the County.
However, the ALUC has refused any compromise.
14. Given that the ALUC is in the process of amending the ALUP and that the LUCE and
Zoning Ordinance Updates constitute a defacto airport land use compatibility plan, the area
surrounding SBP could be considered a "no-ALUP" area. Consequently, pursuant to PUC
Section 21675.l (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.
Response 19: ALUCs can require the review of "all actions, regulations, and permits" involving
the vicinity of a public airport under only two circumstances: (1) prior to ALUC adoption of a
compatibility plan for the airport (the ALUC has an ALUP so this does not apply); and (2) when
a local agency has neither revised its GP to be consistent with the ALUC's plan nor overruled the
ALUC with regard to the ALUP. The City proposes to overrule the ALUC determination and
therefore the ALUC cannot require review of “all actions, regulations, and permits”.
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
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;
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).
Response 20: The Airport Land Use Compatibility Report proved that there were many areas of
agreement between the ALUC and the City. The general, the results of the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report was the recommendation to resolve four primary areas with the ALUC:
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 64
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 13
a. ALUP Maneuvering Zone S-1b size and land use criteria, which are more
restrictive than California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and
criteria.
b. ALUP Sideline Zone S-1c size and land use criteria, which are more restrictive
than California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria.
c. ALUP Zone S-2 size and land use criteria, which are more restrictive than
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria.
d. ALUP aircraft noise contours and associated land use criteria, which are more
restrictive than California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and
criteria, and not based on the forecasts provided in the Airport Master Plan
Update (2005) and the subsequent EA/EIR prepared for the AMP update.
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.
Response 21: The City’s LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with [PUC]
Section 21670 and Paragraph 2 of this ALUC letter.
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) (l) 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
ALUP.
Response 22: The findings document inconsistencies between noise element policies and noise
compatibility criteria in the ALUP and indicate why the differences exist; show how noise
element policies will assure conformance with the state noise airport standards; and identify
measures to be incorporated into local development to mitigate existing and foreseeable airport
noise problems. Similarly, the findings document inconsistencies between the LUCE and safety
compatibility criteria in the ALUC compatibility plan, describe measures taken to assure that
risks associated with the land use proposal are held to a minimum and that the proposed land use
measures fall within a level of acceptable risk considered to be a community norm for urban and
suburban areas. Key words are to "minimize excessive" NOT to not permit any noise and safety
hazards not permitted under the ALUP.
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.App.4th 1384).
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 65
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 14
Response 23: The Airport Land Use Compatibility Report and Findings prepared by the City in
support of its LUCE Update provide substantial evidence, for the record, and provide a clear link
between such evidence and the decision reached.
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. 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.
Response 24: The Council adopted preliminary findings on August 19, 2014 and those findings
were transmitted (and received) by the ALUC on August 20, 2014 and by Caltrans on August 22,
2014. Responses were received from Caltrans on September 22, 2014 and by the ALUC on
September 19, 2014. The Council will not consider final action until October 21, 2014 – 60 days
after transmittal of the findings. Therefore, the City is consistent with PUC Section 21676(b).
20. On August 20, 2014, the City submitted a Notice of lntent 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 (ALUC) and Caltrans (Division of Aeronautics)
Draft Findings that the Proposed Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update is Consistent
with the Purposes Setforth 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.
Response 25: Comment noted.
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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 66
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 15
Response 26: Two sections of the law establish that, if a city overrules an ALUC with respect to
a publicly owned airport not operated by the city, the agency operating 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 override the commission's action or
recommendation" (Sections 21678 and 21675.1(f)). The law does not indicate that liability shifts
to the City under these circumstance. Any alleged liability against the City would have to be
proven through the litigation process, wherein various governmental immunities would likely
apply and a litigant would have to prove damages caused by the City, as opposed to the action or
failure to act of a third party.
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) (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]). The
ALUC Report is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated 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 (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).
(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 "[f]or 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."
Response 27: While there are no absolute determinants for the noise level at which an
individual person will be highly annoyed, federal and state regulations and policies set 65
decibels (dB) Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) or Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) as the basic limit of acceptable aircraft noise exposure for residential and other noise-
sensitive land uses.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 67
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 16
The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook does recognize that for quieter settings, 65
dB CNEL may be too high, and it also states that “the best outcome is compatibility criteria that
will reflect what is appropriate for the communities involved.”
Table 4B, 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.
Based on the “urbanized area” designation by the Census Bureau and the existing land use and
planned land use in the Airport Influence Area, Caltrans guidelines suggest that for the City of
San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP), existing residential
and noise sensitive land uses are appropriate up to the 65 dB CNEL contour, but that new
residential development and noise sensitive uses should be limited to the 60 dB CNEL contour or
less.
(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.
Response 28: San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) straddles city and county
jurisdictions and development (both existing and proposed) is vastly different inside the urban
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 68
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 17
reserve line versus outside the urban reserve line. Properties within the County’s jurisdiction
(other than development supported through and anticipated by the Airport Area Specific Plan)
are rural or suburban in nature; characterized by larger agricultural parcels and existing
residential suburban development south of Buckley Road. Inside the urban reserve area are US
101, state highways, rail noise, busy local and regional circulation systems, and commercial and
industrial parcels that create an urban environment and elevate ambient noise .
The Census Bureau delineates urbanized areas and urban clusters after each decennial census,
“primarily on the basis of residential population density measures at the census tract and census
block levels of geography, but also based on additional criteria that account for patterns of non-
residential development as outlined in the urban area criteria published in the Federal Register on
August 24, 2011 (76 FR 53030).” (Qualifying Urban Areas for the 2010 Census). Based on its
characteristics, the City of San Luis Obispo is considered an urbanized area according to the list
provided by the Census Bureau in their Qualifying Urban Areas for the 2010 Census.
In defining their suggested base for delineating safety zones around an airport, the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook describes rural, suburban, urban, and dense urban areas as
follows:
Rural – Areas where the predominant land uses are natural or agricultural; buildings are
widely scattered.
Suburban – Areas characterized by low-rise (1-2 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.
As depicted in Figure 8-2, Existing Land Uses, in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report,
there is already Commercial Retail, Industrial, Multiple Use, Office, Single Family Residential,
and Multifamily Residential within a ½ mile of the San Luis Obispo Airport. The Airport Area
Specific Plan anticipates much greater development with annexation and construction associated
with the Chevron and other projects in the area.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 69
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 18
Based on the “urbanized area” designation by the Census Bureau and the existing land use and
planned land use in the Airport Influence Area, Caltrans guidelines suggest that for the City of
San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo Airport, existing residential and noise sensitive land
uses are appropriate up to the 65 dB CNEL contour, but that new residential development and
noise sensitive uses should be limited to the 60 dB CNEL contour or less.
(iii) The Johnson Report fails to normalize sound exposure criteria for SBP.
Normalization is strongly recommended by the Handbook.
Response 29: Normalization, established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, adjusts
actual measured noise levels so that the effects of different noises on different communities can
be compared more reliably. The following Table 4A from the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook describes the type of correction that should be made based on specific
variables. While ALUC’s are encouraged to consider normalization factors, the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states, “normalization is not applicable to implementation
of the noise standards for California airports. The noise standards are formal regulations that
have their own requirements separate from land use planning guidelines.”
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 70
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 19
Based on the normalization factors listed in Table 4A, 0 adjustment is recommended for SBP
within the City of San Luis Obispo Urban Reserve Line.
Based on the “urbanized area” designation by the Census Bureau and the existing land use and
planned land use in the Airport Influence Area, Caltrans guidelines suggest that for the City of
San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo Airport, existing residential and noise sensitive land
uses are appropriate up to the 65 dB CNEL contour, but that new residential development and
noise sensitive uses should be limited to the 60 dB CNEL contour or less
(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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 71
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 20
community's sensitivity to intrusive sound, as expressed in the recently adopted
City Noise Ordinance.
Response 30: The Johnson Aviation Land Use Compatibility Report is intended to validate the
noise analysis prepared by the SBP Master Plan Update EA/EIR (2006) to determine where
development potential exists as the community considers the LUCE Update. The Report does
not conclude that the City should adopt new noise standards but rather suggests where
development types and locations are consistent with state guidance.
The Noise Ordinance was last updated in 2010 with a provision to address continued violations
of the noise ordinance. Section 9.12.80 C(2) of the City’s Noise code indicates that “nothing in
this section shall be construed to prohibit, restrict, penalize, enjoin or in any manner regulate the
movement of aircraft which are in all respects conducted in accordance with, or pursuant to,
applicable federal laws or regulations.”
A summary of existing policies from the Noise Element of the City of San Luis Obispo General
Plan are found below:
(v) The Johnson Report inappropriately characterizes, minimizes and
dismisses the record of citizen complaints regarding airport noise analysis.
Response 31: The City of San Luis Obispo requested and received noise complaint information
from the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport to fully assess the level of community concern with
airport-related, aircraft noise.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 72
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 21
As shown in Table 6-2, Noise Complaints at SBP, from the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Report, seventy-five percent of all aircraft noise complaints collected by County Airport officials
over the last five years have been generated by three individuals.
This is not meant to minimize noise impacts associated with aircraft operations but rather to
consider complaints received in context to determine whether it is a pervasive community-wide
issue or an annoyance to a limited few. This information appears to support the idea that there
are a few individuals for whom aircraft noise is a particular annoyance; not that aircraft noise
causes issues for a large segment of the population.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1 – Noise Complaints at SBP
(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.
Response 32: The Master Plan Update for the San Luis Obispo Airport (SBP) was adopted in
2005. The forecasts prepared for the Master Plan Update were submitted to the FAA and
approved as per FAA AC 150-5070-6B, Airport Master Plans.
The Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EA/EIR) was completed in 2006.
As the basis for its noise modeling, the SBP EA/EIR used the FAA-approved forecasts prepared
for the adopted Master Plan Update as its basis for noise modeling.
These FAA-approved forecasts were also used in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report
prepared by Johnson Aviation to validate the noise analysis prepared in the SBP EA/EIR.
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 or the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), it
substantiates the ultimate development of the Airport, which is shown on the FAA-approved
airport layout plan (ALP).
Chapter 3, Building an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, of the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook states the following:
Noise Complaint Origin:Noise Complaint:
Caller #Engine RunupsLow FlyingNoiseOtherOverflightGrand Total
Caller #101 3 237 7 477724 41.1%41.1%
Caller #36 1 231185 4 49470 26.7%67.8%
Caller #15 44 10 2 69125 7.1%74.9%
Caller #83 5 34 31 70 4.0%78.9%
Caller #67 2 18 38 58 3.3%82.2%
Caller #98 1 2 1 33 37 2.1%84.3%
Caller #56 3 16 19 1.1%85.4%
Caller #93 5 1 13 19 1.1%86.5%
Caller #40 1 3 8 12 0.7%87.2%
Caller #95 1 1 5 5 12 0.7%87.8%
Caller #94 3 7 10 0.6%88.4%
Percent of
Total
Cumulative
Percent
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 73
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 22
Page 3-5: PUC Section 21675 (a) requires that ALUCPs be based on an airport
development plan “that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the
next 20 years.” Forecasts having the required 20 -year time horizon are normally included
in airport master plans. The FAA, Caltrans, and some regional planning agencies also
prepare individual airport forecasts, some of which extend to 20 years.
Page 3-7: An adopted airport master plan is one of the preferred sources for airport
activity forecasts and noise contours.
Page 3-47: 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.
Page 3-47: Ultimately, state law forces ALUCs to accept plans adopted by airport
owners, even if the ALUC considers the plans either unrealistically grandiose or too
modest.
The activity forecast projected in the Airport Master Plan Update shows a level of activity that
would require annual operations to essentially double. Since the Master Plan Update is based not
solely on projected operations but also references all of the improvements required to support
those operations, the Johnson Aviation Airport Land Use Compatibility Report relies on the
Airport Master Plan Update as a valid planning tool for anticipating noise associated with
ultimate airport development to support ultimate aircraft operations for the time frame associated
with the LUCE Update.
(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.
Response 33: The noise contours and associated technical information were developed in the
San Luis Obispo Regional Airport Master Plan Update EA/EIR that was adopted by the County
of San Luis Obispo in 2006. Johnson Aviation used this same technical information to validate
the originally adopted Master Plan Update noise contours using the FAA’s latest version of the
Integrated Noise Model (INM). Johnson Aviation also fulfilled a request by the ALUC to view
the 55 dB CNEL noise contour in addition to the 60 dB, 65 dB, and 70 dB CNEL noise contours
provided in the EA/EIR. The contours appear almost identical with variations attributable to
increased accuracy of aircraft profiles. These results have been provided to the Airport
Manager’s consultant to independently review and verify.
(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 an ALUP Update Subcommittee survey of 148 ALUPs
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 74
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 23
from across California, it was found that 93.5% do not utilize the generic
Handbook zones.
Response 34: 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 (2011).
While ALUCs are not mandated to use the sample zones provided in the Handbook, they are
mandated to use the Handbook‘s guidance 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).
Adjustments to the safety zones recommended by the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook should be made if there are certain physical and operational characteristics present at
the airport such as high terrain, roads, or non-standard instrument approach procedures. These
characteristics are summarized in Table 3A of the Handbook.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 75
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 24
(ii) The Johnson Report fails to adequately analyze or address the specific,
local topographic, meteorologic and operational factors which impact aviation
safety at SBP.
Response 35: An assessment of whether any of the safety zone adjustment factors described in
Table 4A of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook apply to SBP was provided in
Section 4.3 of the Johnson Aviation Airport Land Use Compatibility Report. The findings from
the Report, which indicate no safety zone adjustments from those suggested by the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook are required, are presented below:
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 may need to be
considered.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 76
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 25
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.
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. 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.
Instrument Approach Procedure(s): Non-standard instrument procedures should be
identified, as well as the extent to which they are used.
Circling Approaches: Circling approaches are charted for SBP including RNAV
(GPS) RWY 11, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, LOC RWY 11 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 11 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.
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.
Voluntary noise abatement procedures are established for SBP but when used,
increase aircraft altitudes and increase safe operating altitudes. No safety zone
adjustments required.
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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 77
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 26
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.
Small Aircraft Using Long Runways: When small airplanes take off from long runways
(especially runways in excess of 8,000 feet in length), it is common practice for them to
turn toward their intended direction of flight before passing over the far end of the
runway, which can create a safety issue.
The longest runway at SBP is 6,100 feet long and is considered a standard general
aviation runway (less than 8,000 feet long). The presence of an air traffic control
tower and voluntary noise abatement procedures preclude early turns before an
aircraft reaches the end of the departure runway and prior to reaching safe turning
altitudes. No safety zone adjustments required.
Runways Used Predominantly in One Direction: This factor does not apply to any of the
runways at SBP. No safety zone adjustments required.
Displaced Landing Thresholds: Runway 11 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.
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.
Response 36: The City strongly disagrees that the analysis presented in the Airport
Compatibility Report does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Section 21676 (b) and
21670. Both the City and Consultant that prepared the Airport Compatibility Report spent a great
deal of time ensuring that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance material was followed,
this includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport
Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable
Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program, FAA AC
150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983), FAA AC 150-5190-
4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports (1987), FAA Order
8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections
5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California Public Utilities Code.
The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE Update follow precisely
the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA-approved Airport Layout
Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA/EIR,
and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety
zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 “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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 78
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 27
Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems…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.”
The City has also followed all the requirements of PUC Section 21676 (b) regarding referral of
proposed actions to the land use commission, and the right to overrule the land use commission
if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article
stated in Section 21670.
The Council adopted preliminary findings on August 19, 2014 and those findings were
transmitted (and received) by the ALUC on August 20, 2014 and by Caltrans on August 22,
2014. Responses were received from Caltrans on September 22, 2014 and by the ALUC on
September 19, 2014. The Council will not consider final action until October 21, 2014 – 60 days
after transmittal of the findings. Therefore, the City is consistent with PUC Section 21676(b).
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 ALUP.
Response 37: The City strongly disagrees that the Johnson Report and LUCE Update is not
consistent with the Handbook. Both the City and Consultant that prepared the Airport
Compatibility Report spent a great deal of time ensuring that all Federal, State, and local laws
and guidance material was followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master
Plans, FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR)
Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise
Compatibility Planning Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility
Planning for Airports (1983), FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit
Height of Objects around Airports (1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6,
and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California Public Utilities Code.
The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE Update follow precisely
the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA-approved Airport Layout
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 79
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 28
Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the
EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook on the
delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 “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…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.”
The City strongly disagrees that Johnson Report and LUCE Update is not consistent with PUC
Section 21676(b) or Section 21670. Nor does 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 ALUP.
Section 21676(b) states: “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 pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall
first refer the proposed action to the commission. If the commission determines that the proposed
action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The
local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the commission by a two-thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with
the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to
overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the
division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may
provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed
decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this
time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the
division or the commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency
governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the public
record of any final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by a
two-thirds vote of the governing body.” The Council adopted preliminary findings on August
19, 2014 and those findings were transmitted (and received) by the ALUC on August 20, 2014
and by Caltrans on August 22, 2014. Responses were received from Caltrans on September 22,
2014 and by the ALUC on September 19, 2014. The Council will not consider final action until
October 21, 2014 – 60 days after transmittal of the findings. Therefore, the City is consistent
with PUC Section 21676(b).
Section 21670 states:
“(a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that:
(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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 80
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 29
of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the
creation of new noise and safety problems.
(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.
(b) In order to achieve the purposes of this article, every county in which there is located an
airport which is served by a scheduled airline shall establish an airport land use commission.
Every county, in which there is located an airport which is not served by a scheduled airline, but
is operated for the benefit of the general public, shall establish an airport land use commission,
except that the board of supervisors of the county may, after consultation with the appropriate
airport operators and affected local entities and after a public hearing, adopt a resolution finding
that there are no noise, public safety, or land use issues affecting any airport in the county which
require the creation of a commission and declaring the county exempt from that requirement.
The board shall, in this event, transmit a copy of the resolution to the Director of Transportation.
For purposes of this section, "commission" means an airport land use commission. Each
commission shall consist of seven members to be selected as follows…”
The remainder of Section 21670 defines who the members of each commission shall be and how
they shall be appointed. Section 21670 does not 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 ALUP.
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.
Response 38: As described in the previous repose (Response 31) the Johnson Report (Airport
Land Use Compatibility Report) and the LUCE Update meet the requirements set forth in PUC
Sections 21676(b) and Section 21670 and support the City’s overrule. The law provides that the
findings must show that the proposed local agency action "is consistent with the purposes of this
article stated in Section 21670." The Handbook provides guidance regarding land use
compatibility consistent with the purposes of Section 21670. Therefore, consistency with the
Handbook requirements imply consistency with the Aeronautics Act and vice versa.
25. The language contained within PUC Section 21674.7 supports the above characterization
and role of the Handbook. Subsection (a) provides that an ALUC 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 compatible with airport operations, as established by this
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 81
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 30
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 ALUCs in the
adoption of ALUPs and to guide Cities only to the extent that the provisions of the Handbook
have been incorporated into the ALUP by the ALUC.
Response 39: PUC Section 21674.7 also states “This subdivision does not limit the authority of
local agencies to overrule commission actions or recommendations pursuant to Sections 21676,
21676.5, or 21677.” The City can overrule after making specific findings that the proposed
action is consistent with Section 21670, which states “(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.
(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.”
The remainder of Section 21670 defines who the members of each commission shall be and how
they shall be appointed.
The City has provided much evidence that its findings and proposed action is consistent with
Section 21670 by ensuring that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance material was
followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA AC 150/5300-13A,
Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable
Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program, FAA AC
150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983), FAA AC 150-5190-
4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports (1987), FAA Order
8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections
5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California Public Utilities Code.
The City has also provided much evidence that shows how certain aspects of the ALUP are not
consistent with the Handbook or Section 21675 of the PUC, which requires the following: "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."
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 82
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 31
To meet CEQA requirements, an EA/EIR was completed for the SBP Master Plan Update in
2006. The EA/EIR included a comprehensive analysis of noise, using the forecasts prepared for
the Airport Master Plan. This noise analysis was validated in the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Report also using the forecasts prepared for the Airport Master Plan. Although it is stated in the
ALUP that data was constructed from information and projections presented in the Airport
Maser Plan, the noise contours presented in the ALUP were cited as those of a noise study
completed by Brown-Buntin Associates in April, 2001. As seen in Figure 6, the noise contours
in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared for the Airport Master Plan, and create
land use policies that are radically more restrictive than those recommended by the Handbook.
Section 21669 states “The department shall adopt noise standards governing the operation of
aircraft and aircraft engines for airports operating under a valid permit issued by the department
to an extent not prohibited by federal law. The standards shall be based upon the level of
noise acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of the airport.”
Furthermore, the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook is not only intended for ALUCs and to
guide Cities only to the extent that the provisions of the Handbook have been incorporated into
the ALUP by the ALUC. The Handbook states that it is intended to “1) provide information to
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 83
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 32
ALUCs, their staffs, airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants, and the public, 2) to identify the
requirements and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents, and 3) define
exemptions where applicable.
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.
Response 40: The City has not developed its own airport land use compatibility plan for SBP.
Rather, it is proceeding with an overrule in those areas that are inconsistent with the ALUP
policies as required by law.
The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the
airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated technical information on
the progress of airport development and operations since the completion of the most recent San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the current ALUP does
not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical information system (GIS)
mapping of the Airport’s safety zones, noise impact areas and overflight areas, which the current
ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours provided in the ALUP are based on a Brown
Buntin Study completed in 2001, not on the 2006 EA/EIR completed for the Airport Master Plan
Update.
The purpose of The Handbook is to“1) provide information to ALUCs, their staffs, airport
proprietors, cities, counties, consultants, and the public, 2) to identify the requirements and
procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents, and 3) define exemptions
where applicable.
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.l (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.l(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.
Response 41: The City is not contending that it is the ALUC for the County. Rather, the City is
complying with the requirements of an overrule with respect to the finding of inconsistency
made by the ALUC concerning the LUCE Update.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 84
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 33
iii. Findings Related to Safety Impacts
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.
Response 42: The findings must be consistent with the purposes as set forth in Section 21670.
There is no requirement that the policies not expose persons to aviation safety risks greater than
exist under the ALUP. Rather, the findings must document any inconsistencies between the
proposed land use action and safety compatibility criteria in the ALUP, describe the measures
taken to assure that risks associated with the land use proposal are held to a minimum and
indicate that the proposed land use action falls within a level of acceptable risk considered to be
a community norm. Again, the key words are minimize and excessive - not consistent with the
current ALUP - otherwise, there would be no need for an overrule option under the Public
Utilities Code.
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.
Response 43: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well-
established federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65
dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should
also be noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in
decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations
where this use would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City
has conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and
requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced
to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any
new residential development to CNEL 60dB. Furthermore, the SAA does not state 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. The SAA states, “if the board of supervisors
of a county and each affected city in that county each makes a determination that proper land use
planning pursuant to this article can be accomplished pursuant to this subdivision, then a
commission need not be formed in that county.” The City would also like to correct that Johnson
Aviation is not a single consultant, rather a professional aviation consulting firm that draws from
the expertise of a variety of aviation subject matter experts as projects warrant.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 85
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 34
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.
Response 44: As Stated in Response #36, the City is fully compliant with the requirements set
forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its 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.
Response 45: The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update are consistent with Federal, State, and
local laws and guidance material. This includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans,
FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77,
Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for
Airports (1983), FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects
around Airports (1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5
of the California Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 “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…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.”
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.
Response 46: The noise contours presented in the ALUP are cited as those from a noise study
completed by Brown-Buntin Associates in April, 2001, not the noise analysis that was completed
for the Airport Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA/EIR.
As seen in Figure 6, the noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared
for the Airport Master Plan Update. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum
acceptable residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from the
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 86
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 35
Brown-Buntin study (a study that cannot be located), instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR.
The Land Use Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure
using the noise contours from this Brown-Buntin study instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR.
The Margarita Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are
also based on the noise contours from the un-locatable Brown-Bunting study instead of the
Airport Master Plan EIR.
This is not consistent with State Statues that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan.
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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 87
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 36
significant increase in the rate of hospitalization for cardio events (see Hansell, AL. BMJ
2013:f5432 doi: 10.l 136/bmj.f5432).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 Todlicher Uirm. Spiegel, 51:45 14 December 2009
(German)).
Response 47: For the purposes of federal regulations, all land uses are considered compatible
with noise levels of less than DNL 65 dB. At higher noise levels, selected land uses are also
deemed acceptable, depending upon the nature of the use and the degree of structural noise
attenuation provided. HUD guidelines also state that noise exposure of DNL 65 dB or less is
acceptable and that between 65 and 75 dB is normally acceptable if appropriate sound
attenuation is provided. The California Airport Noise Regulations establish 65 dB as the level of
noise acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of an airport.
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.
Response 48: Many people are sensitive to the frequent presence of aircraft overhead even at
noise low levels. These reactions can mostly be expressed in the form of annoyance. Often,
noise complaints come from locations beyond any of the defined noise contours. Therefore,
given the extensive geographic area over which noise complaints are often made, notification is
often the best compatibility criteria to use. The City has determined that it is not practicable to
avoid development in all areas identified as noise complaint locations.
The City of San Luis Obispo requested and received noise complaint information from the San
Luis Obispo Regional Airport to fully assess the level of community concern with airport-
related, aircraft noise.
As shown in Table 6-2, Noise Complaints at SBP, from the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Report, seventy-five percent of all aircraft noise complaints collected by County Airport officials
over the last five years have been generated by three individuals.
This is not meant to minimize noise impacts associated with aircraft operations but rather to
consider complaints received in context to determine whether it is a pervasive community-wide
issue or an annoyance to a limited few. This information appears to support the idea that there
are a few individuals for whom aircraft noise is a particular annoyance; not that aircraft noise
causes issues for a large segment of the population.
Table 6 2 – Noise Complaints at SBP
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-2 – Noise Complaints at SBP
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 88
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 37
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.
Response 49: The City disagrees that its LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update does not meet
the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670. The City has provided much
evidence that its findings and proposed action is consistent with Section 21670 by ensuring that
all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance material was followed, this includes: FAA AC
150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal
Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150,
Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and
Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983), FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance
to Limit Height of Objects around Airports (1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to
21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 “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…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.”
Section 21676(b) states: “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 pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall
first refer the proposed action to the commission. If the commission determines that the proposed
action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The
Noise Complaint Origin:Noise Complaint:
Caller #Engine RunupsLow FlyingNoiseOtherOverflightGrand Total
Caller #101 3 237 7 477724 41.1%41.1%
Caller #36 1 231185 4 49470 26.7%67.8%
Caller #15 44 10 2 69125 7.1%74.9%
Caller #83 5 34 31 70 4.0%78.9%
Caller #67 2 18 38 58 3.3%82.2%
Caller #98 1 2 1 33 37 2.1%84.3%
Caller #56 3 16 19 1.1%85.4%
Caller #93 5 1 13 19 1.1%86.5%
Caller #40 1 3 8 12 0.7%87.2%
Caller #95 1 1 5 5 12 0.7%87.8%
Caller #94 3 7 10 0.6%88.4%
Percent of
Total
Cumulative
Percent
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 89
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 38
local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the commission by a two-thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with
the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to
overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the
division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may
provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed
decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this
time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the
division or the commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local
agency governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the
public record of any final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted
by a two-thirds vote of the governing body.”
The City has followed all the requirements of PUC Section 21676 (b) regarding referral of
proposed actions to the land use commission, and the right to overrule the land use commission
if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article
stated in Section 21670.
The Council adopted preliminary findings on August 19, 2014 and those findings were
transmitted (and received) by the ALUC on August 20, 2014 and by Caltrans on August 22,
2014. Responses were received from Caltrans on September 22, 2014 and by the ALUC on
September 19, 2014. The Council will not consider final action until October 21, 2014 – 60 days
after transmittal of the findings. Therefore, the City is consistent with PUC Section 21676(b).
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.
Response 50: ALUCs exercise approval authority over certain types of local government land
use actions as specified in the Aeronautics Act. Local governments like the City also must abide
by the provisions of the airport land use planning statutes. Nevertheless, the law only gives
ALUCs the powers to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses (Section 21674(a))
and to coordinate compatibility planning efforts at the state, regional, and local levels (Section
21674(b)). ALUCs are not implementing agencies in the manner of local governments. Nor do
they issue permits for a project such as those typically required both by local governments and
various state and federal agencies. The ability of ALUCs to ensure implementation of their plans
is thus limited from both a statutory and a practical perspective. Specifically, and for example,
ALUC decisions can be overruled by the City. Although the City must adopt findings and take
other steps in order to overrule the ALUC, they have that authority. The City is not required to
show that the ALUP is inadequate; rather, it must show that its policies are consistent with the
purposes of Section 21670.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 90
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 39
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.
Response 51: The City's findings are not based on the assertion that the ALUP is inadequate;
rather the City's findings demonstrate that the City's policies are consistent with the purposes of
the statutes as set forth in section 21670. The City also meets the requirements set forth in PUC
Section 21676(b) as they have notified and referred all proposed actions to the commission as
per the requirements of Section 21676(b).
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.
Response 52: The City has documented all factual evidence and chain of reasoning for its
Findings as per the requirements of Federal, State, and local laws and guidance so strongly that
both the Caltrans and the ALUC have accused the City of preparing a “defacto airport land use
compatibility plan for SBP” which the City has not. Rather, the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Report establishes the basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo
General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides
updated technical information on the progress of airport development and operations since the
completion of the most recent San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan
Update, which the current ALUP does not provide. Supporting this updated information is
accurate graphical information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport’s safety zones, noise impact
areas and overflight areas, which the current ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours
provided in the ALUP are based on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001, not on the 2006
EA/EIR completed for the Airport Master Plan Update. The City has also prepared an
Environmental Impact Report for its LUCE Update as per the requirements of CEQA and to
further show its factual evidence and chain of reasoning for all its stated conclusions.
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.
Response 53: As stated in Response #36, and repeated in several other responses, the City fully
meets the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified
in its overrule.
B. Finding Specific Comments
i. Finding 1
40. Finding 1 provides as follows:
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 91
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 40
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.
Response 54: Section 1 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact.
(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 ALUP.
Response 55: Section 1 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact.
(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.
Response 56: Section 1 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact.
(c) Finding 1 is conclusory and not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Response 57: Section 1 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact.
(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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 92
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 41
Response 58: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
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.
Response 59: The City has considered all relevant facts regarding airport land use compatibility
and safety as well as balanced the City’s other land use and circulation considerations (such as
the desire to promote compact urban infill development within the existing urban reserve line) in
its proposed decision to overrule the ALUC determination in this matter. When making land use
decisions, the City has a broader set of issues to contend with in addition to airport compatibility.
This is why the statutes provide that the City may overrule the ALUC determination, and in this
case, an overrule is particularly appropriate because the ALUC has not established a solid
foundation for their land use policies.
The Handbook, Page 4-17 also offers a note that is particularly appropriate for consideration at
San Luis Obispo: “Note that this urban versus rural distinction is not limited just to differences
between one airport and another, it may also be true between various portions of individual
airport’s environs. Consequently, it may be reasonable for compatibility criteria to allow
comparatively intensive development and/or infill development in one part of an airport’s
vicinity, but not in another. If an ALUC chooses to take this approach, however, sufficient
reasoning should be provided.”
The City of San Luis Obispo has thoughtfully addressed this approach suggested by the
Handbook in the course of its LUCE process. The City has likewise reached out to the ALUC
for over two years to bring these ideas to the table for consideration. After numerous friendly
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 93
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 42
requests, the City was forced to make a Public Records Act request of both the ALUC2 and
Caltrans3 to attempt to simply review a copy of the proposed update to the ALUC’s Airport Land
Use Plan (ALUP). Despite these extraordinary lengths by the City to participate in the ALUP
update process, both the ALUC and Caltrans refused to provide a copy of the ALUP update.
Only after the City announced its intent to overrule the ALUC determination on the LUCE did
the ALUC finally make a public release of a copy of their draft ALUP. This approach does not
demonstrate an open and inclusive planning process. The City maintains that moving forward
based on logic, facts and sound planning principles is the best option available, and hopes the
ALUC will be open to this approach as the ALUP is updated so that both the community and the
ALUC can work towards a common goal.
(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.
Response 60: The facts contained within the Master Plan and the associated EIR, which have
not been incorporated by the ALUC into the ALUP as required by state law, do not support this
conclusion.
(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.
Response 61: See City’s Responses to Paragraphs 22-23.
(d) Finding 2 is conclusory and not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Response 62: See City’s Responses to Paragraphs 22-23.
(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.
Response 63: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
iii. Finding 3
44. Finding 3 provides as follows:
2 Public Records Act request citation of ALUC for copy of ALUP update…
3 Public Records Act request citation of Caltrans for copy of ALUP update…
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 94
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 43
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)).
Response 64: The Division is not required to determine whether or not an ALUP meets the
requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. Rather, Caltrans is only required to provide approval
for the ALUC to use an ALP (instead of a master plan) for purposes of compatibility planning.
City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 210 Cal.App.3d 1277.
The Division does not have approval authority over an ALUP.
(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.
Response 65: The fact remains that the ALUP is not based upon the County-adopted Master
Plan and the associated EIR covering noise impacts. The ALUC and Caltrans acknowledges this
fact in its responses to the City’s Draft Findings in its Intent to Overrule . Simply restating the
process for the last update of the ALUP does not rehabilitate the failings of the current plan.
(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."
Response 66: The Division is not required to determine whether or not an ALUP meets the
requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. Rather, Caltrans is only required to provide approval
for the ALUC to use an ALP (instead of a master plan) for purposes of compatibility planning.
City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 210 Cal.App.3d 1277.
The Division does not have approval authority over an ALUP.
(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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 95
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 44
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.
Response 67: Section 3 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated. This fact is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments
to the City’s Draft Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(e) Finding 3 is conclusory and not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Response 68: Section 3 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that is supported by the full
body of materials presented by the City regarding the ALUP.
(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.
Response 69: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
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.
Response 70: See Section 2.3 of the ALUP, “The dimensions of this area were defined in 1977
and have not changed.”
(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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 96
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 45
Response 71: Section 4 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City’s Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(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.
Response 72: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
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:
(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.
Response 73: Section 5 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated. This fact is acknowledged here by the ALUC. When information and technology
change it is the very reason why plans need to be periodically updated and changed to reflect this
new information. These problems with the ALUP are exactly why the City approached the
ALUC in the first place to ensure that the ALUP reflected the Master Plan and the resulting
physical changes to the airport runways that have been constructed in recent years.
(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.
Response 74: Unfortunately those extremely precise, GIS-compatible descriptions are no more
reflective of the actual safety risk than their less precise predecessors.
(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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 97
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 46
Response 75: Section 5 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City’s Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(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.
Response 76: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law .
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 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 (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 (TAP)." On the contrary, in cases where the
TAP is at variance with the activity forecasts of the approved Airport Master Plan, state
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 98
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 47
law mandates that ALUCs utilize the Airport Master Plan forecast for land use planning
purposes.
Response 77: The ALUC ignores the foundation of the FAA’s requirements for approving
master plan forecasts while affirming the State’s requirement that ALUPs be based on an
approved master plan. Section 21675 requires the following: "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." The approval
of an airport master plan can only occur after compliance with the CEQA, which includes
preparation and adoption of a negative declaration (ND) or mitigated negative declaration
(MND) and/or preparation and certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the
Airport Master Plan. CEQA statutes and guidelines state that an EIR shall be considered by
every public agency prior to its approval or disapproval of a project. “Project” shall include the
carrying out or approval of a plan that expands or enlarges an existing publicly owned airport.
The Airport Master Plan Update for San Luis Obispo Airport was completed in 2003, revised in
2004, and accepted by the Board of Supervisors of the County in 2005. In 2006 the County
completed and certified an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for extension of the main Runway 11/29 and other suggested Airport improvements. As
per the EIR, “In accordance with FAA policy, the FAA will use this EA for ALP approval and
future federal funding approvals over the next five-year period…in accordance with CEQA, San
Luis Obispo County is required to be concerned with the ‘whole of the action,’ which is defined
as all projects identified in the Master Plan program. Therefore, for purposes of this EA/EIR, the
County’s obligation under CEQA is to include both phases of the Master Plan.”
As part of the EIR, a comprehensive analysis of noise, using the forecasts prepared for the airport
master plan, was completed. This noise analysis was validated in the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report also using the forecasts prepared for the Airport Master Plan. Although it is
stated in the ALUP that data was constructed from information and projections presented in the
Airport Maser Plan, the noise contours source presented in the ALUP are cited as a noise study
completed by Brown-Buntin Associates in April, 2001. A public records act request to both the
County and a direct request to Brown-Buntin failed to locate this study which was used by the
ALUC to set noise contours based upon a hypothetical maximum use of airport runways. As
seen in Figure 6, the noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared for
the Airport Master Plan. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable
residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from the cited study
from Brown-Buntin Associates instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The Land Use
Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure using the
noise contours from the study from Brown-Buntin Associates instead of the Airport Master Plan
EIR. The Margarita Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the
ALUP, are also based on the noise contours from the study from Brown-Buntin Associates
instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 99
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 48
(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.
Response 78: The Division is not required to determine whether or not an ALUP meets the
requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. Rather, Caltrans is only required to provide approval
for the ALUC to use an ALP (instead of a master plan) for purposes of compatibility planning.
City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 210 Cal.App.3d 1277.
The Division does not have approval authority over an ALUP.
(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.
Response 79: Section 6 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 100
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 49
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City’s Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(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."
Response 80: Section 6 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City’s Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(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.
Response 81: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law .
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.
53. Analysis of Finding 7:
(a) The ALUP contains no provisions that would regulate airfield configuration,
"airport role," or future airport activity levels.
Response 82: The ALUC’s land use policies and application of those policies through project
referrals are not based on the County-adopted Master Plan, its forecast or its associated EIR. As
a result the ALUC is placing undue restrictions on land use in the vicinity of the airport as a
result of its knowingly flawed ALUP.
(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.
Response 83: Section 7 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City’s Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 101
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 50
Response 84: While there is no requirement for the ALUP to use forecast numbers from the
TAF, the ALUP must be based on the AMP. ALUC continues to ignore the FAA’s requirements
for approving master plan forecasts. The AMP was completed in 2003, revised in 2004, and
accepted by the Board of Supervisors of the County in 2005. In the 10 years since this planning
was completed, much has changed in the aviation industry and the local aviation activity at SBP.
As a result, the forecasts of aviation activity reflected in the Airport Master Plan Update require
significant updates to better reflect the existing conditions at SBP, and to better align with the
Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) official Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for the
facility. However, for the purposes of this LUCE Update, the City is relying on the SBP Master
Plan forecasts of aviation activity as a reasonably foreseeable projection of ultimate aviation
activity sufficient for long-term land use planning purposes, without regard for the date of 2023
because it is uncertain when the forecast levels of activity will be reached and because growth
must be consistent with the capital improvement plan for the Airport.
(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.
Response 85: Section 7 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City’s Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(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.
Response 86: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law .
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:
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 102
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 51
(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).
Response 87: Public Utilities Code Section 21674.7(a) states, “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. (emphasis added).”
(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
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.
Response 88: The ALUC continues to miss the essence of the problem with its safety zones. It
is not only the size and shape of the zones but most importantly the connection between those
zones and actual safety risk and associated land use policies that provide meaningful protection
to people and property in line with the risk.
(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).
Response 89: The ALUP actually defines eight safety zones.
(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.
Response 90: Requirements and criteria of each safety zone is identified and fully explained in
the Handbook. Safety zones are made up of their geographic area and proximity to the runway
along with the corresponding land use restrictions that connect to the actual safety risk to people
and property on the ground. The Handbook traffic pattern zone does incorporate a very large
geographic area but its land use restrictions are limited to buyer awareness of aircraft overflight
and proximity to the airport with no limitations on the type, density or intensity of land use in
urban areas like the City. The Handbook Inner Turning Zone is specifically aligned and shaped
to contain potential accidents close to the airport (less than one mile from the runway end) where
aircraft are in descending and climbing turns, to and from the runway. The remaining inner
approach/departure zone, outer approach departure zone and sideline zones are all grouped
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 103
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 52
narrowly along the runway centerline and runway centerline extended into the
approach/departure area.
(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.
Response 91: The Division is not required to determine whether or not an ALUP meets the
requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. Rather, Caltrans is only required to provide approval
for the ALUC to use an ALP (instead of a master plan) for purposes of compatibility planning.
City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 210 Cal.App.3d 1277.
The Division does not have approval authority over an ALUP.
(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.
Response 92: The zones increase in size, rather than decrease in size, despite decreased risk
from the aircraft operations with further distance from the airport. ALUP Maneuvering Zone S-
1b, due to the fact that its size, configuration and land use criteria are inconsistent with California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria, has no such equivalent zone in the
Handbook. This zone is also unsubstantiated by the airport’s activity forecasts as used for noise
planning purposes, historical accident data at SBP, or safety zone adjustment factors as described
in Table 3A of the Handbook. ALUP Sideline Zone S-1c, due to the fact that its size,
configuration and land use criteria are more restrictive than California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria, has no such equivalent zone in the Handbook. This
zone is also unsubstantiated by the airport’s activity forecasts as used for noise planning
purposes, historical accident data at SBP, or safety zone adjustment factors as described in Table
3A of the Handbook. ALUP Zone S-2 is not consistent with Zone 6 – Traffic Pattern of the
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria. Safety Area S-2 is
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 104
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 53
really just the ALUP’s Airport Land Use Planning Area. The ALUP states, “the dimensions of
this area were defined in 1977 and have not changed. In general terms, the Planning Area is an
irregular oval, which is aligned with its long axis in a northwest southeast direction, parallel to
the centerline of Runway 11-29 at the Airport. The dimensions of the oval are approximately
31,600 feet by 20,850 feet. The Planning Area extends from a point approximately ½ mile
southeast of the community of Edna on the southeast to West Oceanaire Drive in the Laguna
Lake Subdivision on the northwest. To the north of the Airport, the Planning Area extends to
Sinsheimer School and Edgewood Drive in the City of San Luis Obispo. To the southeast and
east, the boundary of the Planning Area is close to the ridgeline of the high terrain.” Safety Area
S-2 is the outermost safety zone and should be the equivalent of Zone 6 in the Handbook. The
size, configuration and land use criteria of Safety Area S-2 should be consistent with Zone 6, and
not based on a Planning Area established by the ALUC in 1977. Caltrans has provided no
further clarity or factual technical detail as to the basis of its support for the ALUP safety zones,
regardless, at this time the City is choosing to accept the defined safety zones from the ALUP
and will work with the ALUC during its ongoing ALUP update.
(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.
Response 93: Section 8 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City’s Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(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.
Response 94: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law .
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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 105
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 54
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.
Response 95: The City requested the development of the Airport Compatibility Report after the
ALUC was unresponsive to the City’s request that the ALUC fully incorporate the Master Plan
and associated EIR findings into its update of the ALUP as required by state law. The Master
Plan was completed in 2005, the associated EIR was certified in 2006 and the extension of
Runway 11/29 was opened in 2007. While the City has made pointed requests over the last two
years that the ALUC update their ALUP to include the Master Plan, it is now nine years beyond
completion of the Master Plan, eight years beyond the completion of the EIR and seven years
beyond the extension of Runway 11/29.
(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.
Response 96: Section 9 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City’s Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(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.
Response 97: Section 9 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City’s Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(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.
Response 98: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law .
x. Finding 10
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 106
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 55
58. Finding 10 provides as follows:
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.
Response 99: The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update are consistent with Federal, State, and
local laws and guidance material. This includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans,
FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77,
Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for
Airports (1983), FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects
around Airports (1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5
of the California Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 “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…protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensur ing 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.”
The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the
airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated technical information on
the progress of airport development and operations since the completion of the most recent San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the current ALUP does
not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical information system (GIS)
mapping of the Airport’s safety zones, noise impact areas and overflight areas, which the current
ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours provided in the ALUP are cited as being based
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 107
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 56
on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001 (which cannot be located), not on the 2006 EA/EIR
completed for the Airport Master Plan Update.
(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.
Response 100: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670-21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
(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.
Response 101: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well-
established federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65
dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should
also be noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in
decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations
where this use would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City
has conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and
requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced
to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any
new residential development to CNEL 60dB.
The noise contours presented in the ALUP are cited as those from a noise study completed by
Brown-Buntin Associates in April, 2001, not the noise analysis that was completed for the
Airport Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA/EIR.
As seen in Figure 6, the noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared
for the Airport Master Plan Update. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum
acceptable residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from the
Brown-Buntin study (a study that cannot be located), instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR.
The Land Use Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure
using the noise contours from this Brown-Buntin study instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 108
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 57
The Margarita Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are
also based on the noise contours from the un-locatable Brown-Bunting study instead of the
Airport Master Plan EIR.
This is not consistent with State Statues that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan.
(d) Finding 10 contains no factual evidence to support the contention that the LUCE
and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the Handbook.
Response 102: The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update are consistent with Federal, State, and
local laws and guidance material. This includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans,
FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77,
Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for
Airports (1983), FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects
around Airports (1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5
of the California Public Utilities Code.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 109
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 58
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 “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…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.”
The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the
airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated technical information on
the progress of airport development and operations since the completion of the most recent San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the current ALUP does
not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical information system (GIS)
mapping of the Airport’s safety zones, noise impact areas and overflight areas, which the current
ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours provided in the ALUP are cited as being based
on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001 (which cannot be located), not on the 2006 EA/EIR
completed for the Airport Master Plan Update.
(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.
Section 103: The City has provided much evidence that its findings and proposed action is
consistent with Section 21670 by ensuring that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material was followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA AC
150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 “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…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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 110
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 59
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.”
Section 21676(b) states: “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 pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall
first refer the proposed action to the commission. If the commission determines that the proposed
action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The
local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the commission by a two-thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with
the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to
overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the
division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may
provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed
decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this
time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the
division or the commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency
governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the public
record of any final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by a
two-thirds vote of the governing body.”
The City has followed all the requirements of PUC Section 21676 (b) regarding referral of
proposed actions to the land use commission, and the right to overrule the land use commission
if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article
stated in Section 21670.
The Council adopted preliminary findings on August 19, 2014 and those findings were
transmitted (and received) by the ALUC on August 20, 2014 and by Caltrans on August 22,
2014. Responses were received from Caltrans on September 22, 2014 and by the ALUC on
September 19, 2014. The Council will not consider final action until October 21, 2014 – 60 days
after transmittal of the findings. Therefore, the City is consistent with PUC Section 21676(b).
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 d 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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 111
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 60
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.
Response 104: The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update are consistent with Federal, State, and
local laws and guidance material. This includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans,
FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77,
Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for
Airports (1983), FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects
around Airports (1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5
of the California Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 “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…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.”
The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the
airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated technical information on
the progress of airport development and operations since the completion of the most recent San
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 112
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 61
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the current ALUP does
not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical information system (GIS)
mapping of the Airport’s safety zones, noise impact areas and overflight areas, which the current
ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours provided in the ALUP are cited as being based
on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001 (which cannot be located), not on the 2006 EA/EIR
completed for the Airport Master Plan Update.
(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.
Response 105: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well-
established federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65
dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should
also be noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in
decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations
where this use would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City
has conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and
requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced
to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any
new residential development to CNEL 60dB.
The noise contours presented in the ALUP are cited as those from a noise study completed by
Brown-Buntin Associates in April, 2001, not the noise analysis that was completed for the
Airport Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA/EIR.
The noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared for the Airport
Master Plan Update. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable
residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from the Brown-
Buntin study (a study that cannot be located), instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The Land
Use Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure using the
noise contours from this Brown-Buntin study instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The
Margarita Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are also
based on the noise contours from the un-locatable Brown-Bunting study instead of the Airport
Master Plan EIR.
This is not consistent with State Statues that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan.
(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 ALUCs 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 ALUP adopted by
the ALUC.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 113
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 62
Response 106: The City has not authored its own airport land use compatibility plan for SBP.
Rather, it is proceeding with an overrule in those areas that are inconsistent with the ALUP
policies as required by law. The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to
establish the basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General
Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated
technical information on the progress of airport development and operations since the completion
of the most recent San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which
the current ALUP does not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical
information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport’s safety zones, noise impact areas and
overflight areas, which the current ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours provided in
the ALUP are based on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001, not on the 2006 EA/EIR
completed for the Airport Master Plan Update.
The Airport Land Use Planning Handbook is not only intended for ALUCs and to guide Cities
only to the extent that the provisions of the Handbook have been incorporated into the ALUP by
the ALUC. The Handbook states that it is intended to “1) provide information to ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants, and the public, 2) to identify the requirements and
procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents, and 3) define exemptions
where applicable.
(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.
Response 107: The City is not adopting an ALUP. Rather, the City is exercising its statutory
and constitutional land use authority to override certain policies in the ALUP and approve a
LUCE Update and zoning ordinance that in not consistent with the ALUP.
(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.
Response 108: It appears that this comment is referencing Section 21670.1(a) of the Public
Utilities Code which allows a designated body to assume the planning responsibilities of the
ALUC if the board of supervisors and the mayors' committee in a county each determine that
another body can accomplish essential airport land use compatibility planning. Although the
designated body format is quite common among ALUCS, this is not the situation here. The
County has a single purpose entity that is the ALUC which the City acknowledges and has
accepted as the County ALUC. Again, the City's approval of the LUCE Update and zoning
ordinances is not based on the prior designation of a new body to serve as the ALUC. Rather,
the City is following the defined overrule process required by state statute based on the ALUC's
inconsistency determination.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 114
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 63
(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.
Response 109: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA-
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 “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…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.”
(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.
Response 110: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670-21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 115
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 64
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
(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.
Response 111: The key words in this component of the law's purpose are minimize and
excessive. In order to adopt a findings demonstrating consistency with this purpose of Section
21670, the City first determined whether the existing noise exposure or safety hazards are
excessive. Where existing noise and safety hazards are not excessive, then the actions taken by
the local agency "prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems." Where the existing
exposure is excessive, the City has shown how its action in overruling an ALUC determination
of inconsistency nonetheless minimizes additional exposure to those noise and safety concerns
that have been identified. Finally, the City has shown the extent to which land uses in the area
are already incompatible with airport operations, and how an action to overrule would not create
a new incompatible use, or would not expose additional persons or property to noise and safety
hazards associated with existing compatible uses.
(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.
Response 112: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 116
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 65
safety and compatibility of existing and proposed land uses and to prevent future
development of incompatible land uses.
63. Analysis of Finding 12:
(a) Finding 12 has the same deficiencies as Findings 10 and 11 noted above,
specifically:
(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.
Response 113: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA-
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 “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…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.”
(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.
Response 114: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well-
established federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65
dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 117
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 66
also be noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in
decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations
where this use would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City
has conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and
requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced
to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any
new residential development to CNEL 60dB.
The noise contours presented in the ALUP are cited as those from a noise study completed by
Brown-Buntin Associates in April, 2001, not the noise analysis that was completed for the
Airport Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA/EIR.
The noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared for the Airport
Master Plan Update. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable
residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from the Brown-
Buntin study (a study that cannot be located), instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The Land
Use Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure using the
noise contours from this Brown-Buntin study instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The
Margarita Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are also
based on the noise contours from the un-locatable Brown-Bunting study instead of the Airport
Master Plan EIR.
This is not consistent with State Statues that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan.
(iii) As discussed in Paragraph 1 1 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 defacto airport land use compatibility plan
in contravention of the SAA.
Response 115: Although approval of the LUCE through the overrule process will result in the
LUCE and zoning ordinance taking effect just as if the ALUC had approved it or found it
consistent with the ALUP, the City must still comply with the mandatory review procedures of
the ALUC with respect to general plans and specific plans and ordinances/regulations. The
LUCE makes these review procedures clear.
The City has not authored its own airport land use compatibility plan for SBP. Rather, it is
proceeding with an overrule in those areas that are inconsistent with the ALUP policies as
required by law. The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated technical
information on the progress of airport development and operations since the completion of the
most recent San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the
current ALUP does not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical
information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport’s safety zones, noise impact areas and
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 118
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 67
overflight areas, which the current ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours provided in
the ALUP are based on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001, not on the 2006 EA/EIR
completed for the Airport Master Plan Update.
(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.
Response 116: It appears that this comment is referencing Section 21670.1(a) of the Public
Utilities Code which allows a designated body to assume the planning responsibilities of the
ALUC if the board of supervisors and the mayors' committee in a county each determine that
another body can accomplish essential airport land use compatibility planning. Although the
designated body format is quite common among ALUCS, this is not the situation here. The
County has a single purpose entity that is the ALUC which the City acknowledges and has
accepted as the County ALUC. Again, the City's approval of the LUCE Update and zoning
ordinances is not based on the prior designation of a new body to serve as the ALUC. Rather,
the City is following the defined overrule process required by state statute based on the ALUC's
inconsistency determination.
(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:
(i) Instrument procedures (approaches and departures) not aligned with
runways
• 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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 119
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 68
• adopted "Quiet Flight" procedures for SBP
• Los Ranchos School
(iv) Runway use by special purpose aircraft
• helicopter operations and helicopter training procedures
• student pilots
Response 117: An assessment of whether any of the safety zone adjustment factors described in
Table 3A of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook apply to SBP was provided in
Section 4.3 of the Johnson Aviation Airport Land Use Compatibility Report. The purpose of the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the airport-area policies
chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
Update. The findings from the Report indicate no safety zone adjustments from those suggested
by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook are required. Simply because a type of
procedure exists or is in use, or that terrain exists in the vicinity, or a runway is occasionally used
by special purpose aircraft, does not by itself change the risk profile or safety setting of the
operation for the surrounding community.
(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.
Response 118: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA-
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 “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…protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 120
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 69
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.”
(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.
Response 119: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well-
established federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65
dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should
also be noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in
decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations
where this use would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City
has conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and
requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced
to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any
new residential development to CNEL 60dB.
The noise contours presented in the ALUP are cited as those from a noise study completed by
Brown-Buntin Associates in April, 2001, not the noise analysis that was completed for the
Airport Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA/EIR.
The noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared for the Airport
Master Plan Update. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable
residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from the Brown-
Buntin study (a study that cannot be located), instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The Land
Use Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure using the
noise contours from this Brown-Buntin study instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The
Margarita Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are also
based on the noise contours from the un-locatable Brown-Bunting study instead of the Airport
Master Plan EIR.
This is not consistent with State Statues that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan.
(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) 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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 121
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 70
Response 120: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670-21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
(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.
Response 121: The City has provided much evidence that its findings and proposed action is
consistent with Section 21670 by ensuring that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material was followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA AC
150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 “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…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.”
Section 21676(b) states: “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 pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall
first refer the proposed action to the commission. If the commission determines that the proposed
action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The
local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the commission by a two-thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with
the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 122
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 71
overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the
division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may
provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed
decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this
time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the
division or the commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency
governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the public
record of any final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by a
two-thirds vote of the governing body.”
The City has followed all the requirements of PUC Section 21676 (b) regarding referral of
proposed actions to the land use commission, and the right to overrule the land use commission
if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article
stated in Section 21670.
The Council adopted preliminary findings on August 19, 2014 and those findings were
transmitted (and received) by the ALUC on August 20, 2014 and by Caltrans on August 22,
2014. Responses were received from Caltrans on September 22, 2014 and by the ALUC on
September 19, 2014. The Council will not consider final action until October 21, 2014 – 60 days
after transmittal of the findings. Therefore, the City is consistent with PUC Section 21676(b).
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:
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 123
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 72
(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.
Response 122: The Airport Land Use Compatibility Report clearly states “…the SBP EA/EIR
(2006) noise analysis used the SBP Master Plan Update forecasts, and these forecasts were also
used to validate that noise analysis, the results of which are summarized in Chapter 6, Airport
Noise. 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, it substantiates the
ultimate development of the Airport, which is shown on the FAA-approved ALP. Table 5-2
summarizes historical and existing activity at SBP, as well as the FAA TAF and Master Plan
Update forecasts prepared for the Airport.” Further evidence that the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report used the Master Plan Update forecasts can be found in Chapter 6 of the
Report where the 2006 EA/EIR noise analysis is validated, “…to prepare the CNEL contours,
aircraft operations data was taken from the forecasts contained within the SBP Master Plan
Update”. The noise analysis completed for the Report perfectly matches the noise contours in the
2006 EA/EIR. This would not be possible with a modified forecast.
(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.
Response 123: The Airport Land Use Compatibility Report clearly states “…the SBP EA/EIR
(2006) noise analysis used the SBP Master Plan Update forecasts, and these forecasts were also
used to validate that noise analysis, the results of which are summarized in Chapter 6, Airport
Noise. 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, it substantiates the
ultimate development of the Airport, which is shown on the FAA-approved ALP. Table 5-2
summarizes historical and existing activity at SBP, as well as the FAA TAF and Master Plan
Update forecasts prepared for the Airport.” Further evidence that the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report used the Master Plan Update forecasts can be found in Chapter 6 of the
Report where the 2006 EA/EIR noise analysis is validated, “…to prepare the CNEL contours,
aircraft operations data was taken from the forecasts contained within the SBP Master Plan
Update”. The noise analysis completed for the Report perfectly matches the noise contours in the
2006 EA/EIR. This would not be possible with a modified forecast.
(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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 124
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 73
Response 124: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA-
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 “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…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.”
(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.
Response 125: It appears that this comment is referencing Section 21670.1(a) of the Public
Utilities Code which allows a designated body to assume the planning responsibilities of the
ALUC if the board of supervisors and the mayors' committee in a county each determine that
another body can accomplish essential airport land use compatibility planning. Although the
designated body format is quite common among ALUCS, this is not the situation here. The
County has a single purpose entity that is the ALUC which the City acknowledges and has
accepted as the County ALUC. Again, the City's approval of the LUCE Update and zoning
ordinances is not based on the prior designation of a new body to serve as the ALUC. Rather,
the City is following the defined overrule process required by state statute based on the ALUC's
inconsistency determination.
(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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 125
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 74
Response 126: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well-
established federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65
dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should
also be noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in
decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations
where this use would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City
has conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and
requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced
to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any
new residential development to CNEL 60dB.
The noise contours presented in the ALUP are cited as those from a noise study completed by
Brown-Buntin Associates in April, 2001, not the noise analysis that was completed for the
Airport Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA/EIR.
The noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared for the Airport
Master Plan Update. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable
residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from the Brown-
Buntin study (a study that cannot be located), instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The Land
Use Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure using the
noise contours from this Brown-Buntin study instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The
Margarita Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are also
based on the noise contours from the un-locatable Brown-Bunting study instead of the Airport
Master Plan EIR.
This is not consistent with State Statues that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan.
(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.
Response 127: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670-21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 126
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 75
(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.
Response 128: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
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
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.
Response 129: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well-
established federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65
dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should
also be noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 127
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 76
decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations
where this use would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City
has conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and
requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced
to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any
new residential development to CNEL 60dB.
The LUCE relies on the noise contours in the 2006 EA/EIR that was completed for the 2005
AMP Update. These noise contours accurately reflect the noise impacts of ultimate, future
development at SBP, which is shown on the FAA-approved ALP, based on forecasts for the
airport over the next 20 years as provided in the AMP.
(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.
Response 130: The findings have adequately documented the inconsistencies between the LUCE
and safety compatibility in the ALUP, described the measures taken to assure that risks
associated with the LUCE is held to a minimum and indicated that the proposed LUCE policies
falls within a level of acceptable risk considered to be a community norm.
(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.
Response 131: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule.
xv. Finding 15
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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 128
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 77
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.
Response 132: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA-
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 “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…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.”
(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.
Response 133: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well-
established federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65
dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should
also be noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in
decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations
where this use would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City
has conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and
requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced
to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any
new residential development to CNEL 60dB.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 129
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 78
(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.
Response 134: The findings have adequately documented the inconsistencies between the LUCE
and safety compatibility in the ALUP, described the measures taken to assure that risks
associated with the LUCE is held to a minimum and indicated that the proposed LUCE policies
falls within a level of acceptable risk considered to be a community norm.
(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.
Response 135: The City has provided much evidence that its findings and proposed action is
consistent with Section 21670 by ensuring that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material was followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA AC
150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 “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…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.”
Section 21676(b) states: “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 pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall
first refer the proposed action to the commission. If the commission determines that the proposed
action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The
local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the commission by a two-thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with
the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 130
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 79
overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the
division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may
provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed
decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this
time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the
division or the commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency
governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the public
record of any final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by a
two-thirds vote of the governing body.”
The City has followed all the requirements of PUC Section 21676 (b) regarding referral of
proposed actions to the land use commission, and the right to overrule the land use commission
if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article
stated in Section 21670.
The Council adopted preliminary findings on August 19, 2014 and those findings were
transmitted (and received) by the ALUC on August 20, 2014 and by Caltrans on August 22,
2014. Responses were received from Caltrans on September 22, 2014 and by the ALUC on
September 19, 2014. The Council will not consider final action until October 21, 2014 – 60 days
after transmittal of the findings. Therefore, the City is consistent with PUC Section 21676(b).
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:
(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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 131
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 80
public's exposure to airport noise and safety hazards as discussed in Paragraphs 23-25
supra.
Response 136: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well-
established federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65
dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should
also be noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in
decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations
where this use would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City
has conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and
requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced
to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any
new residential development to CNEL 60dB.
(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).
Response 137: The City relies on the most recent document that provides accurate information
regarding the projected forecasts for the airport and the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan as
per Secion 21675(a). It should be noted that actual annual aviation activity at SBP has been
significantly lower than the SBP Master Plan forecasts. For example, the Master Plan Update
forecast 117,550 total operations in 2008. However, the actual total operations recorded for that
year was 94,824—a difference of approximately 24 percent. It is also important to note that
while the Master Plan Update forecast operations, enplanements, and based aircraft growing each
year, the actual numbers have declined. Actual annual aviation activity at SBP was 66% lower
than the SBP Master Plan forecast for 2012 and it appears that this gap will grow larger in 2013
with even lower SBP aircraft operations. While it is plausible that at some point in its future
SBP will reach the 140,050 total operations forecast in the Master Plan Update, it is uncertain
when this threshold will be reached. 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, it substantiates the ultimate development of the Airport, which is shown on the FAA-
approved ALP.
(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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 132
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 81
Response 138: The Airport Land Use Compatibility Report clearly states “…the SBP EA/EIR
(2006) noise analysis used the SBP Master Plan Update forecasts, and these forecasts were also
used to validate that noise analysis, the results of which are summarized in Chapter 6, Airport
Noise. 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, it substantiates the
ultimate development of the Airport, which is shown on the FAA-approved ALP. Table 5-2
summarizes historical and existing activity at SBP, as well as the FAA TAF and Master Plan
Update forecasts prepared for the Airport.” Further evidence that the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report used the Master Plan Update forecasts can be found in Chapter 6 of the
Report where the 2006 EA/EIR noise analysis is validated, “…to prepare the CNEL contours,
aircraft operations data was taken from the forecasts contained within the SBP Master Plan
Update”. The noise analysis completed for the Report perfectly matches the noise contours in the
2006 EA/EIR. This would not be possible with a modified forecast.
(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).
Response 139: The City relies on the most recent document that provides accurate information
regarding the projected forecasts for the airport and the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan as
per Secion 21675(a). It should be noted that actual annual aviation activity at SBP has been
significantly lower than the SBP Master Plan forecasts. For example, the Master Plan Update
forecast 117,550 total operations in 2008. However, the actual total operations recorded for that
year was 94,824—a difference of approximately 24 percent. It is also important to note that
while the Master Plan Update forecast operations, enplanements, and based aircraft growing each
year, the actual numbers have declined. Actual annual aviation activity at SBP was 66% lower
than the SBP Master Plan forecast for 2012 and it appears that this gap will grow larger in 2013
with even lower SBP aircraft operations. While it is plausible that at some point in its future
SBP will reach the 140,050 total operations forecast in the Master Plan Update, it is uncertain
when this threshold will be reached. 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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 133
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 82
forecast, it substantiates the ultimate development of the Airport, which is shown on the FAA-
approved ALP.
(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.
Response 140: The noise contours and associated technical information were developed in the
San Luis Obispo Regional Airport Master Plan Update EA/EIR that was adopted by the County
of San Luis Obispo in 2006. Johnson Aviation used this same technical information to validate
the originally adopted Master Plan Update noise contours using the FAA’s latest version of the
Integrated Noise Model (INM). Johnson Aviation also fulfilled a request by the ALUC to view
the 55 dB CNEL noise contour in addition to the 60 dB, 65 dB, and 70 dB CNEL noise contours
provided in the EA/EIR. The contours appear almost identical with variations attributable to
increased accuracy of aircraft profiles. These results have been provided to the Airport
Manager’s consultant to independently review and verify.
(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.
Response 141: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well-
established federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65
dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should
also be noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in
decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations
where this use would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City
has conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and
requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced
to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any
new residential development to CNEL 60dB.
(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.
Response 142: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 134
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 83
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.
Response 143: The City is proposing to overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination
specifically for the update of the LUCE of the City’s General Plan and the associated Airport
Overlay Zoning Regulations. The City is not overruling the ALUC or in any way trying to usurp
its powers. Instead, the City is following the State Aeronautics Act provisions as provided for
under the California Public Utilities Code Section 21676 (b).
(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 of ALUCs in a manner consistent with the law, and authorizes only them to
formulate and adopt ALUCPs (italics added).
Response 144: The City is not amending the ALUCP and its policies, circumventing the
ALUC's project review process, or establishing a separate airport land use commission. Rather,
it is proceeding with an overrule in those areas that are inconsistent with the ALUP policies as
required by law. The CDD did not indicate that project-specific overrides would be forthcoming
because the LUCE process is a General Plan update and policies and programs apply city-wide.
The particular areas of physical change were shared with the ALUC sub-committee and publicly
posted (as have been all staff reports, minutes, workshop summaries, background reports,
PowerPoints, and Task Force proceedings related to the LUCE process). The purpose of the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the airport-area policies
chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
Update. The Report also provides updated technical information on the progress of airport
development and operations since the completion of the most recent San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the current ALUP does not provide.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 135
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 84
Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical information system (GIS) mapping of
the Airport’s safety zones, noise impact areas and overflight areas, which the current ALUP also
does not provide. The noise contours provided in the ALUP are cited as being based on a Brown
Buntin Study completed in 2001 (which cannot be located), not on the 2006 EA/EIR completed
for the Airport Master Plan Update.
(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.
Response 145: The City is proposing to overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination
specifically for the update of the LUCE of the City’s General Plan and the associated Airport
Overlay Zoning Regulations. The City is not overruling the ALUC or in any way trying to usurp
its powers. Instead, the City is following the State Aeronautics Act provisions as provided for
under the California Public Utilities Code Section 21676 (b).
(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.
Response 146: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well-
established federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65
dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should
also be noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in
decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations
where this use would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City
has conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and
requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced
to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any
new residential development to CNEL 60dB.
(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.
Response 147: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule.
xviii. Finding 18
74. Finding 18 provides as follows:
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 136
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 85
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
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.
Response 148: The Handbook states, “While ALUCs 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 generic safety zones already take into account many of the factors common to all airports of
similar characteristics. The Handbook states, “the shapes and sizes of the zones were established
based upon mathematical analyses of the accident location data presented in this and Appendix
E. Not clearly stated in past editions, though, was that another factor also played a part in the
zone delineation and is important to acknowledge here: flight parameters. More specifically, as
an aircraft approaches for landing or climbs out after takeoff, how is it being operated? Where is
it normally flying relative to the runway, and at what altitude? Is it flying straight and level or
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 137
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 86
turning and climbing or descending? What actions pose the greatest stress on the aircraft and
greatest potential for loss of control or fewest options for recovery if the unexpected occurs?
Where are conflicts between aircraft in flight most likely to happen and potentially create risks
for the land uses below?”
(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.com/MediaPlayer.php?view _id=33&clip_id=
1527.
Response 149: The ALUP does not specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table
3A of the Handbook. There is no discussion of how topography, geography, special flight
procedures, special purpose aircraft, small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing
thresholds (something that is being corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the
safety zones recommended in the Handbook. For the ALUP’s S-2 safety zone, the ALUP
discusses the circle-to-land instrument approaches south of Runway 11-29 as a consideration,
however, 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.
ALUP Section 4.4.3, Delineation of Safety Areas, states the considerations of primary
importance: “a. The flight paths most heavily utilized by aircraft departing from or approaching
to land at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport – Flight paths utilized by a relatively
high proportion of arriving or departing aircraft are associated with an increased accident risk. b.
The flight paths utilized by aircraft departing from or approaching to land at the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport during adverse weather conditions – Maintaining control of an aircraft
in conditions that make visualization of the horizon and the ground impossible is one of the most
challenging tasks that a pilot can face. Flight paths which have been designated by the Federal
Aviation Administration for use during reduced-visibility conditions, therefore, are of significant
concern to the ALUC. c. The anticipated altitude of aircraft operations – A critical operational
element in ensuring the safety of persons and property on the ground is the ability of the pilot of
a disabled airplane to avoid impact with inhabited structures. The likelihood of the pilot
accomplishing this is directly related to the time and gliding distance available, and both of these
are dependent on the aircraft’s altitude at the time a malfunction occurs.” There is no discussion
of how topography, geography, special flight procedures, special purpose aircraft, small aircraft
using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds warrant adjustments to the safety zones
recommended in the Handbook. There is only discussion in the ALUP’s Section 4.4.3 and
subsequent Section 4.4.4 (Delineation of Aviation Safety Sub-Areas) on considerations
surrounding flight maneuvers, which the Handbook’s generic safety zones already take into
account.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 138
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 87
(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.
Response 150: The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable residential
noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from a noise study completed
by Brown-Buntin Associates in 2001 instead of the 2006 Airport Master Plan EA/EIR. The
Brown-Buntin study cannot be located, evaluated, or reviewed. The Land Use Compatibility
Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure using the noise contours
from the Brown-Buntin study instead of the 2006 Airport Master Plan EA/EIR. The Margarita
Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are also based on
the noise contours from the un-locatable Brown-Buntin study instead of the 2006 Airport Master
Plan EA/EIR. The noise contours in the Brown-Buntin study vastly differ from those in the 2006
EA/EIR and create land use policies in the ALUP with unnecessary and unjustified restrictions.
(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.
Response 151: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA-
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 “provide
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 139
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 88
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…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.”
(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 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.
Response 152: The terrain does not change the flight path on the right downwind for Runway
29. While aircraft do fly a downwind outside Islay Hill, this is not outside the FAA’s
recommendations for a standard air traffic pattern. Standard traffic patterns are typically flown to
the left, 1,000 feet above airport elevation, and approximately a ½ mile to 1 mile out from the
landing runway. At airports with air traffic control towers (such as at SBP), the tower often
instructs the pilot to enter the pattern at any point or straight-in for landing. Figure 10 in the
ALUP, Aircraft Flight Paths, illustrates the typical flight patterns flown at SBP. The arrival and
departure tracks used for EA/EIR noise modeling also show typical flight patterns to the right
and left of Runway 11/29. The distance from the runway is not increased or decreased to avoid
any terrain; the altitudes above airport elevation are also not adjusted for terrain. Since Runway
29 is used 77% of the time for arrivals, departures, and touch-and-goes, the majority of pilots
using SBP do not even have to deal with the terrain on the north side of the airport.
The minor adjustment in glideslope for Runway 29 is not because of high terrain in the vicinity,
it is for obstruction clearance (light poles in traffic intersection of Edna Road and Buckley Road)
in the last 1500 feet of the approach. Simply because terrain exists in the vicinity of an airport
does not by itself change the risk profile or safety setting of the operation for the surrounding
community.
(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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 140
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 89
Response 153: The City’s Airport Land Use Compatibility Report provides a complete analysis
of aircraft accidents and incidents at San Luis Obispo Airport and in the airport vicinity from
1982 to present. The methodology for this review of accidents followed the same methodology
as used for the Handbook Appendix E analysis and criteria. Of the accidents investigated by the
NTSB, none involved fatalities of people on the ground.
(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.
Response 154: The City is not contending that it is the ALUC for the County. Rather, the City
is complying with the requirements of an overrule with respect to the finding of inconsistency
made by the ALUC concerning the LUCE Update.
(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).
Response 155: The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable residential
noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from a noise study completed
by Brown-Buntin Associates in 2001 instead of the 2006 Airport Master Plan EA/EIR. The
Brown-Buntin study cannot be located, evaluated, or reviewed. The Land Use Compatibility
Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure using the noise contours
from the Brown-Buntin study instead of the 2006 Airport Master Plan EA/EIR. The Margarita
Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are also based on
the noise contours from the un-locatable Brown-Buntin study instead of the 2006 Airport Master
Plan EA/EIR. The noise contours in the Brown-Buntin study vastly differ from those in the 2006
EA/EIR and create land use policies in the ALUP with unnecessary and unjustified restrictions.
This in itself warrants an overrule.
(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.
Response 156: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 141
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 90
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:
(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.
Response 157: Page 3-47 of the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states,
“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.” Finding 19 does not infer a forecast methodology, it merely justifies the use of the
forecasts in the 2005 Airport Master Plan Update as the basis for the ultimate facilities
development shown on the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan, even though actual annual
aviation activity at SBP has been significantly lower than the SBP Master Plan forecasts. For
example, the Master Plan Update forecast 117,550 total operations in 2008. However, the actual
total operations recorded for that year was 94,824—a difference of approximately 24 percent. It
is also important to note that while the Master Plan Update forecast operations, enplanements,
and based aircraft growing each year, the actual numbers have declined. Actual annual aviation
activity at SBP was 66% lower than the SBP Master Plan forecast for 2012 and it appears that
this gap will grow larger in 2013 with even lower SBP aircraft operations. While it is plausible
that at some point in its future SBP will reach the 140,050 total operations forecast in the Master
Plan Update, it is uncertain when this threshold will be reached. Furthermore, the City is
overruling the ALUC because the City's proposed policies are inconsistent with the ALUP, not
because the City does or does not support the ALUC's forecast methodology.
(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,
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 142
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 91
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).
Response 158: Page 3-47 of the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states,
“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.” Before constructing any further forecasts for SBP using its own methodologies, the ALUC
should note that the 2005 Airport Master Plan Update is the basis for the ultimate facilities
development shown on the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan, even though actual annual
aviation activity at SBP has been significantly lower than the SBP Master Plan forecasts. For
example, the Master Plan Update forecast 117,550 total operations in 2008. However, the actual
total operations recorded for that year was 94,824—a difference of approximately 24 percent. It
is also important to note that while the Master Plan Update forecast operations, enplanements,
and based aircraft growing each year, the actual numbers have declined. Actual annual aviation
activity at SBP was 66% lower than the SBP Master Plan forecast for 2012 and it appears that
this gap will grow larger in 2013 with even lower SBP aircraft operations. While it is plausible
that at some point in its future SBP will reach the 140,050 total operations forecast in the Master
Plan Update, it is uncertain when this threshold will be reached. It may not even be reached over
a 40 year planning horizon.
(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.
Response 159: The Johnson Report (The Airport Land Use Compatibility Report) very clearly
states that actual annual aviation activity at SBP has been significantly lower than the SBP
Master Plan forecasts. This is why it is uncertain when in its future SBP will reach the 140,050
total operations forecast in the Master Plan Update. The Report also very clearly states that 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, it substantiates the ultimate
development of the Airport, which is shown on the FAA-approved ALP. This is why the
planning of facilities at SBP is based on milestones of short, intermediate, and long term aviation
activity versus actual years. 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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 143
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 92
(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).
Response 160: Page 3-47 of the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states,
“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.” Before constructing any further forecasts for SBP using its own methodologies, the ALUC
should note that the 2005 Airport Master Plan Update is the basis for the ultimate facilities
development shown on the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan, even though actual annual
aviation activity at SBP has been significantly lower than the SBP Master Plan forecasts. For
example, the Master Plan Update forecast 117,550 total operations in 2008. However, the actual
total operations recorded for that year was 94,824 —a difference of approximately 24 percent. It
is also important to note that while the Master Plan Update forecast operations, enplanements,
and based aircraft growing each year, the actual numbers have declined. Actual annual aviation
activity at SBP was 66% lower than the SBP Master Plan forecast for 2012 and it appears that
this gap will grow larger in 2013 with even lower SBP aircraft operations. While it is plausibl e
that at some point in its future SBP will reach the 140,050 total operations forecast in the Master
Plan Update, it is uncertain when this threshold will be reached. It may not even be reached over
a 40 year planning horizon.
(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 exposure to noise and safety hazards, when compared with
the provisions of the current ALUP, and
Response 161: There was no forecast methodology employed in constructing the airport land
use compatibility provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates. The City used the
forecasts provided in the 2005 Airport Master Plan Update and subsequent 2006 EA/EIR. The
City also used the noise contours presented in the 2006 EA/EIR to support its land use policies.
The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well- established
federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65 dB as the
maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should also be
noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in decisions by
local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations where this use
would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City has
conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and requirements
for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced to an interior
noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any new residential
development to CNEL 60dB.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 144
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 93
(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.
Response 162: The City is not overruling a future draft update to the ALUP. The City is
overruling findings related to the existing ALUP as required by state law. Discussion about what
type of forecasts the ALUP Update may or may not contain is not relevant.
(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.
Response 163: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 145
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 94
spite of the economic downturn and is well-positioned to participate in any future
recovery.
Response 164: The City supports future recovery of activity at SBP and fully acknowledges that
the existing AMP plans for and will accommodate that future growth. The information related to
downturn in the economy and its impact on operations merely reflects that the total operations
projected in the AMP are more applicable to the LUCE and the AOZ than the timing associated
with the original forecast year of 2023.
(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.
Response 165: PUC Section 21675 requires the ALUC to formulate a plan that includes and is
based upon the long range master plan or airport layout plan (ALP) “that reflects the anticipated
growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years.” When the AMP was adopt ed the plan
was intended to reflect the upcoming 20 years of anticipated growth and its operational forecast
was consistent with FAA AC I 50/5070-6B. Finding 20 describes the fact that the noise contours
in the ALUP far exceed those of the adopted AMP and the AMP itself reflects an aggressive
amount of growth than has not materialized. Despite the fact an update to the AMP today might
result in much more conservative operational forecasts (in light of current TAF’s), the City is
using the AMP and the FAA-approved ALP as a long term forecast of activity and ultimate
airport development by which to estimate potential noise impacts in compliance with PUC 21675
and the Handbook. While statistical variations year to year may not be significant for any one
year, trends experienced over successive years are important to note which is what the Johnson
Aviation report has focused on – trends versus change predicated on evidence from a single year.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 146
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 95
(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.
Response 166: Page 3-47 of the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states,
“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.” The ALUC states that the AMP is the only legitimate forecast for airport land use
compatibility planning but that is not the forecast used to generate the noise contours in the
ALUP as evidenced by the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report, which validated the noise
contours prepared for the 2006 EA/EIR. The LUCE and AOZ include and reflect the operational
forecasts and associated noise contours incorporated in the AMP and corresponding EIR in
accordance with PUC 21675.
(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.
Response 167: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670-21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning. The LUCE and
AOZ rely on the AMP EIR for noise contours and forecast of future operations in order to
address potential impacts to land uses. This is consistent with the Handbook and with PUC
21675.
(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.
Response 168: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 147
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 96
xxi. Finding 21
80. Finding 21 provides as follows:
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 I 50/5070-6B, 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 I O percent in the 5-year
forecast and I5 percent in the IO-year period for "other commercial service airports" like
SBP. The current Master Plan for SBP differs more than IO% in the 5-year forecast and I
5% in the IO-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 2I (FAA AC I 50/5070-6B) is only
applicable to the preparation and revision of Airport Master Plans. The requirements of
FAA AC I 50/5070-6B were adhered to in the formulation and adoption of the current
Airport Master Plan for SBP. FAA AC I 50/5070-6B, 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.
Response 169: PUC Section 21675 requires the ALUC to formulate a plan that includes and is
based upon the long range master plan or airport layout plan “that reflects the anticipated growth
of the airport during at least the next 20 years.” When the AMP was adopted the plan was
intended to reflect the upcoming 20 years of anticipated growth and its operational forecast was
consistent with FAA AC I 50/5070-6B. Finding 21 describes the fact that the noise contours in
the ALUP are based on forecasts that far exceed the forecasts in the adopted AMP and the noise
contours in the 2006 EA/EIR prepared for the master plan. This is not in line with the ultimate
development of the airport as presented in the FAA-approved ALP. The AMP itself reflects an
aggressive amount of growth that has not materialized. Despite the fact that an update to the
AMP today might result in much more conservative operational forecasts (in light of current
TAFs), the City is using the AMP as a long term forecast of activity by which to estimate
potential noise impacts in compliance with PUC 21675, the Handbook, and the FAA-approved
ALP.
(b) As previously discussed supra, PUC Section 2 I 675(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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 148
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 97
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
[...]
Response 170: This is a statement of code. Comment noted.
(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 2I 675(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.
Response 171: The ALUC states that the AMP is the only legitimate forecast for airport land use
compatibility planning but the ALUP fails to base its noise contours and land use policies on the
AMP and FAA-approved ALP. The LUCE and AOZ include and reflect the operational
forecasts and associated noise contours incorporated in the AMP EIR in accordance with PUC
21675. The City did not state that the TAF was an appropriate forecast to use for long term
planning purposes, but rather that understanding the context of the AMP in light of the TAF
provided assurance that the AMP is an adequate forecast to use for understanding potential long
term noise impacts to the community based on the ultimate airport development shown on the
FAA-approved ALP.
(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.
Response 172: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670-21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 149
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 98
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning. The LUCE and
AOZ rely on the AMP for forecasts of future operations, its corresponding 2006 EA/EIR for
noise contours, and the FAA-approved ALP for ultimate airport development in order to address
potential impacts to land uses. This is consistent with the Handbook and with PUC 21675.
(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.
Response 173: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law
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:
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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 150
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 99
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 4B, 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.
Response 174: The Handbook concept of normalization indicates the commonly used baseline
criterion of 65 dB CNEL and makes adjustments to this baseline to address local conditions. For
example, a quiet rural area would subtract 10 dB from that baseline to arrive at noise contours to
fit the local setting. In San Luis Obispo, modifying adjustments include those associated with a
noisy urban residential community near relatively busy roads (add 5 dB onto baseline) and an
adjustment due to the community having had considerable previous exposure to intruding noise
and the noise-maker’s relationship with the community is good (add another 5 dB onto baseline).
Subtractions from baseline would include impulsive tone or character present (minus 5 dB from
baseline). These normalization factors do not point to requiring a 55 dB noise contour and
instead point out that the City’s use of 60 dB is more than adequate to address local conditions.
The ALUC is correct in pointing out that the LUCE and AOZ do not use the 55 dB contour to
limit noise sensitive uses. As described in subsequent responses, ambient noise from state and
federal highways in addition to rail traffic exceed this threshold in most locations within the
ALUP and implementing this standard would preclude new residential development in the ALUP
boundary.
(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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 151
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 100
property" (emphasis in original) (see Allegretti & Company v. County of Imperial (2006)
138 Cal.App.4th 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 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 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.
Response 175: The law of taking is complex, evolving and always subject to a fact intensive
analysis and careful legal research. However, sweeping governmental regulation that
significantly reduces or eliminates the development potential or value of private property without
any basis in verifiable fact or data should be viewed as potentially suspect and subject to
challenge. Whether a particular claim might have merit is often a question that is only resolved
after lengthy and expensive litigation, which can and should most often be avoided by ensuring
that governmental decisions regarding land use are based on sound and verifiable factual
foundations.
(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.
Response 176: The provisions of PUC Section 21676(b) do not require the local agency to
establish more stringent standards than an ALUP in order to overrule. The recommendations in
the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE Update follow precisely the recommended
development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the
forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in
the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land
use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 “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…protect public health, safety, and welfare
by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 152
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 101
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.”
(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.
Response 177: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
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 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).
Response 178: It is disingenuous for the ALUC to state that it is not required to base the ALUP
on the most recent AMP. PUC Section 21675 requires the ALUC to formulate a plan that
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 153
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 102
includes and is based upon the long range master plan or airport layout plan “that reflects the
anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years.” When the AMP was adopted
the plan was intended to reflect the upcoming 20 years of anticipated growth. While it may be
rare that an ALUC immediately updates its plan after update of an AMP, it has been 8-9 years
since the AMP was adopted and the EIR was certified, more than adequate time for the ALUC to
update the ALUP. The LUCE and associated AOZ are in compliance with the AMP unlike the
ALUP, so while being out of date does not invalidate an ALUP, it does present grave concerns
for the City to rely on it since it does not reflect or incorporate the AMP and associated
evaluation done through the EIR, and provides enough justification for the City to overrule.
(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."
Response 179: Only the AMP’s associated EA/EIR contains noise contours that reflect the
anticipated operational activity in the upcoming 20 years to support the FAA-approved ALP.
While the ALUP may reflect noise contours from a previous AMP, it states that noise contours
were associated with a 2001 Brown-Buntin study that is not available for public review. The
ALUC statement confirms that the ALUP is outdated and not reflective of the adopted AMP and
EA/EIR.
(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).
Response 180: The ALUP does not reference the 1998 AMP but rather cites a 2001 Brown-
Buntin study and shows noise contours based on a theoretical maximum use of runways. This
does not meet PUC Section 21675.
(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."
Response 181: The City did not offer to use the existing noise contours in the Noise Element of
the General Plan but rather recommended use of existing noise policies in the General Plan
which limit residential uses to areas within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour. The Noise Element
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 154
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 103
map is being updated as part of the LUCE as an internal consistency correction to reflect
information from the Airport Master Plan.
(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.
Response 182: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxiv. Finding 24
86. Finding 24 provides as follows:
Table 4B, 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 4B of the Handbook
contained in 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.
Response 183: The ALUC response misstates the Handbook adjustments for normalization that
would apply to the City of San Luis Obispo. The Handbook concept of normalization indicates
the commonly used baseline criterion of 65 dB CNEL and makes adjustments to this baseline to
address local conditions. For example, a quiet rural area would subtract 10 dB from that baseline
to arrive at noise contours to fit the local setting. In San Luis Obispo, modifying adjustments
include those associated with a noisy urban residential community near relatively busy roads
(add 5 dB onto baseline) and an adjustment due to the community having had considerable
previous exposure to intruding noise and the noise-maker’s relationship with the community is
good (add another 5 dB onto baseline). Subtractions from baseline would include impulsive tone
or character present (minus 5 dB from baseline). These normalization factors do not point to
requiring a 55 dB noise contour and instead point out that the City’s use of 60 dB is adequate to
address local conditions. The ALUC is correct in pointing out that the LUCE and AOZ do not
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 155
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 104
use the 55 dB contour to limit noise sensitive uses. As described in subsequent responses,
ambient noise from state and federal highways in addition to rail traffic exceed this threshold in
most locations within the ALUP and implementing this standard would preclude new residential
development in the ALUP boundary.
(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.
Response 184: Establishing a 55 dB CNEL noise contour may be appropriate for the rural
portions of the county where ambient noise levels may actually support such a contour.
However, this noise contour is not reasonable in a community where ambient noise levels from
existing state and federal highways and rail traffic already exceed this standard. This standard
would preclude new residential uses anywhere in the City within the ALUP boundaries which is
not a reasonable standard. Since the 60 dB noise standard is used elsewhere in the City, it is not
reasonable to set a more restrictive standard in the ALUP area where community already has an
expectation of noise. The 60 dB noise standard does not expose the public to excessive noise.
(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.
Response 185: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
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.
Response 186: This is a statement of approach to response. Noted.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 156
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 105
(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.
Response 187: The ALUC references several criteria in this response: normalization, failure to
depict the 55 dB contour, and the AMP forecast citing the year 2023 as its future year. The
Handbook concept of normalization indicates the commonly used baseline criterion of 65 dB
CNEL and makes adjustments to this baseline to address local conditions. For example, a quiet
rural area would subtract 10 dB from that baseline to arrive at noise contours to fit the local
setting. In San Luis Obispo, modifying adjustments include those associated with a noisy urban
residential community near relatively busy roads (add 5 dB onto baseline) and an adjustment due
to the community having had considerable previous exposure to intruding noise and the noise-
maker’s relationship with the community is good (add another 5 dB onto baseline). Subtractions
from baseline would include impulsive tone or character present (minus 5 dB from baseline).
These normalization factors do not point to requiring a 55 dB noise contour and instead point out
that the City’s use of 60 dB is adequate to address local conditions. The A LUC is correct in
pointing out that the LUCE and AOZ do not use the 55 dB contour to limit noise sensitive uses.
As described in subsequent responses, ambient noise from state and federal highways in addition
to rail traffic exceed this threshold in most locations within the ALUP and implementing this
standard would preclude new residential development in the ALUP boundary. Finally, the fact
that the AMP forecast operations to the year 2023 does not preclude its use as a reasonable
projection of long term operations and associated noise impacts. As described in subsequent
responses, the activity forecast in the AMP has not materialized and current operations are
roughly half of what they were when the AMP was developed, thereby indicating it is still
adequate for long term projection of operations and associated noise.
(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.
Response 188: Establishing a 55 dB CNEL noise contour may be appropriate for the rural
portions of the county where ambient noise levels may actually support such a contour.
However, this noise contour is not reasonable in a community where ambient noise levels from
existing state and federal highways and rail traffic already exceed this standard. This standard
would preclude new residential uses anywhere in the City within the ALUP boundaries which is
not a reasonable standard. Since the 60 dB noise standard is used elsewhere in the City, it is not
reasonable to set a more restrictive standard in the ALUP area where the community already has
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 157
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 106
an expectation of noise: the 60 dB noise standard does not increase the public’s exposure to
excessive noise.
(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.
Response 189: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
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.
Response 190: This is a statement of approach to response. Noted.
(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.
Response 191: The Johnson Report documents that noise contours were generated by entering
the data points of aircraft types, time of day of operations, and forecast operations numbers into
the latest INM model (Version 7.0d). The model output matches that of the AMP EIR.
Regardless of the ALUC’s question of acoustic analysis qualifications, the LUCE update and
AOZ implementation reflect the AMP EIR noise analysis which ostensibly would overcome the
ALUC’s objection.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 158
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 107
(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
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.
Response 192: Establishing a 55 dB CNEL noise contour may be appropriate for the rural
portions of the county where ambient noise levels may actually support such a contour.
However, this noise contour is not reasonable in a community where ambient noise levels from
existing state and federal highways and rail traffic already exceed this standard. This standard
would preclude new residential uses anywhere in the City within the ALUP boundaries which is
not a reasonable standard.
(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.
Response 193: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
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
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 159
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 108
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.
Response 194: This is a statement of approach to response. Noted.
(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.
Response 195: Establishing a 55 dB CNEL noise contour may be appropriate for the rural
portions of the county where ambient noise levels may actually support such a contour.
However, this noise contour is not reasonable for a community where ambient noise levels from
existing state and federal highways and rail traffic already exceed this standard. This standard
would preclude new residential uses anywhere in the City within the ALUP boundaries which is
not a reasonable standard. The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public
interest in aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation,
Division of Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide
guidance for conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5,
Airport Land Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670-21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the
Division of Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements
for the preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their
staffs, airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the
requirements and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning
documents. Therefore, conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating
compliance with the State Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility
planning.
(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.
Response 196: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 160
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 109
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).
Response 197: The Airport Master Plan has more recently been updated than the ALUP and
therefore the ALUP does not reflect the adopted AMP. In addition, the noise study cited in the
ALUP (Brown-Buntin) cannot be located despite a public records act request from the City to the
County or in response to a direct request to Brown-Buntin. The ALUP references the theoretical
maximum use of the runways as the assumption behind the noise contours rather than reliance on
information generated through the current Airport Master Plan and associated EIR. It is not
accurate to state that the ALUP uses the AMP as the source of information for noise because the
AMP has changed.
(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.
Response 198: The City has access to the current AMP documentation provided through the
associated EIR and has used this information to understand potential long term noise impacts
associated with future aircraft operations. The ALUP does not include this information nor is it
based upon the most current AMP or FAA-approved ALP.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 161
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 110
(c) As discussed in Paragraph 85 supra, the ALUC has 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.
Response 199: The City did not offer to use the existing noise contours in the Noise Element of
the General Plan but rather recommended use of existing noise policies in the General Plan
which limit residential uses to areas within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour. The Noise Element
map is being updated as part of the LUCE as an internal consistency correction to reflect
information from the Airport Master 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.
Response 200: Caltrans staff has indicated the noise contours need to be based on the AMP as
reflected in PUC section 21675(a) cited by the ALUC. The Handbook reflects this requirement
and expands the sources of noise information as follows: Airport Master Plans (the ALUP does
not reflect the most recent AMP EIR noise contours whereas the City’s approach follows the
AMP EIR); Noise Elements of General Plans provided they are similar to noise contours form
airport master plans (City’s Noise Element map is being updated as part of the LUCE as an
internal consistency correction to reflect information from the Airport Master Plan);
Environmental documents with development or master plan (AMP EIR provides noise contours);
FAR Part 150 studies (current and five year projected noise contours which the Handbook states
are not sufficient for more than five year time frame unless impacts are anticipated to decrease);
and AICUZ studies conducted by the Department of Defense for military facilities (SBP is not a
military facility). Of these five sources, the AMP EIR is the most applicable to use for
understanding potential long term noise impacts. While the Handbook does include a reference
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 162
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 111
to “composite criteria” for purposes of land use compatibility, it also notes major disadvantages
to this approach including basis for location of the zone boundaries not being clear. It further
notes that “if more detailed assessment of a complex land use development proposal is
necessary, reference to separate noise and safety compatibility tables and maps is often still
required.” (Handbook section 3.3.1 pages 3-37-38).
(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.
Response 201: The Johnson Aviation report relies on the AMP EIR for noise contours in
compliance with PUC Section 21675(a) and guidance in the Handbook. The AMP projections
adequately represent a long term forecast for purposes of potential land use impacts because the
trends predicted in the AMP have not come to fruition. The total aviation activity in 2012 was
66% lower than the AMP forecast for the same year and the gap grew larger in 2013. While it is
plausible that at some point in its future SBP may reach the 140,050 total operations forecast in
the AMP, it is uncertain when that threshold will be reached. Since current operations are
roughly half of those reflected when the AMP was adopted, projecting the AMP total operations
into the future still represents an aggressive estimate of future operations and a conservative
approach to land use planning despite the 2023 forecast year used in the AMP.
(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.
Response 202: Establishing a 55 dB CNEL noise contour may be appropriate for the rural
portions of the county where ambient noise levels may actually support such a contour.
However, this noise contour is not reasonable in a community where ambient noise levels from
existing state and federal highways and rail traffic already exceed this standard. This standard
would preclude new residential uses anywhere in the City within the ALUP boundaries which is
not a reasonable standard.
(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.
Response 203: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxix. Finding 29
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 163
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 112
96. Finding 29 provides as follows:
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.
Response 204: This is a statement of fact based on noise complaint data provided to the City by
County airport staff in response to a public records act request.
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.
Response 205: The City of San Luis Obispo requested and received noise complaint information
from the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport to fully assess the level of community concern with
airport-related, aircraft noise.
As shown in Table 6-2, Noise Complaints at SBP, from the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Report, seventy-five percent of all aircraft noise complaints collected by County Airport officials
over the last five years have been generated by three individuals.
This is not meant to minimize noise impacts associated with aircraft operations but rather to
consider complaints received in context to determine whether it is a pervasive community-wide
issue or an annoyance to a limited few. This information appears to support the idea that there
are a few individuals for whom aircraft noise is a particular annoyance; not that aircraft noise
causes issues for a large segment of the population.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-3 – Noise Complaints at SBP
(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.
Noise Complaint Origin:Noise Complaint:
Caller #Engine RunupsLow FlyingNoiseOtherOverflightGrand Total
Caller #101 3 237 7 477724 41.1%41.1%
Caller #36 1 231185 4 49470 26.7%67.8%
Caller #15 44 10 2 69125 7.1%74.9%
Caller #83 5 34 31 70 4.0%78.9%
Caller #67 2 18 38 58 3.3%82.2%
Caller #98 1 2 1 33 37 2.1%84.3%
Caller #56 3 16 19 1.1%85.4%
Caller #93 5 1 13 19 1.1%86.5%
Caller #40 1 3 8 12 0.7%87.2%
Caller #95 1 1 5 5 12 0.7%87.8%
Caller #94 3 7 10 0.6%88.4%
Percent of
Total
Cumulative
Percent
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 164
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 113
Response 206: This statement is not accurate. Experience at many airports has shown that
noise-related concerns do not stop at the boundary of the CNEL contour because many people
are sensitive to the frequent presence of aircraft overhead even at low noise levels. These
reactions, however, are not because of exposure to excessive noise; rather, these reactions can
mostly be expressed in the form of annoyance. While these impacts are important communit y
concerns, the question of importance here is whether any land use planning actions can be taken
to avoid or mitigate the impacts or otherwise address the concerns. Commonly, when overflight
impacts are a discussion in a community, the focus is on modification of flight routes. Indeed,
many believe that overflight impacts should be addressed solely through the aviation side of the
equation. Certainly, land use measures that would prevent residential development anywhere
within the area of annoyance would be excessive and not appropriate. Rather, notification
measures are more appropriate.
The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in aeronautics and
aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics
administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for conducting
airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land Use
Commissions, PUC Sections 21670-21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
(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.
Response 207: This comment is speculative in nature.
(d) The percentage of persons who will be highly annoyed by aircraft noise increases
exponentially with increasing Ldn (see Hansell, AL. BMJ 2013:f5432 doi:
10.1136/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%).
Response 208: There have been many studies of airport and aircraft noise sensitivity and the
level of subjective human response to noise. For at least the last 24 years, the California Airport
Noise Standard has been set in state law at 65 dB CNEL (Title 21, California Code of
Regulations, Section 5000, et seq). The City has set its own noise limit within the City at 60 dB
CNEL. No new residential development is planned within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour as
developed for the Airport Master Plan EIR.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 165
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 114
(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.
Response 209: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670-21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning. The LUCE and
AOZ conform with guidance in the Handbook and the AMP.
(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.
Response 210: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670-21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning. The LUCE and
AOZ conform with guidance in the Handbook and the AMP.
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.
Response 211: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxx. Finding 30
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 166
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 115
98. Finding 98 provides as follows:
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.
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.
Response 212: There is not a causal relationship between the fact that SBP has not been
designated a “noise problem” airport and purported effectiveness of the ALUP in minimizing the
public’s exposure to excessive noise. Data from County airport staff indicates that 75% of
airport noise complaints over the last five years was generated by three individuals. The City of
San Luis Obispo is an urban setting with federal and state highways and rail traffic traversing the
City. Community expectations are affected by ambient noise levels and aviation activity is just
one aspect of the active environment. The LUCE and AOZ are consistent with guidance in the
Handbook and with noise contours in the 2006 EA/EIR which assesses impacts of the AMP and
FAA-approved ALP, a long term view of operations and ultimate development at the airport.
(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.
Response 213: Unlike the ALUP, the Johnson Report uses the Airport Master Plan and
associated EIR as a reasonable projection of long term aviation activity that may impact land
uses. The LUCE update and implementation through the AOZ set a standard of 60 dB CNEL
exterior and 45 dB CNEL interior noise standards for noise-sensitive uses – a standard found
“suitable for new development around most airports. Particularly appropriate in mild climates
where windows are often open.”4 The State Aeronautics Act does not require the overrule to
comply with the ALUP’s method of addressing noise and safety concerns but rather leaves the
land use authority with the local agency provided the public health, safety, and welfare is
protected and the land use measures minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and
safety hazards within areas around public airports.
(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.
Response 214: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
4 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, Table 4B, page 4-7
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 167
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 116
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
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.
Response 215: There is not a causal relationship between the fact that SBP has not been
designated a “noise problem” airport and purported effectiveness of the ALUP in minimizing the
public’s exposure to excessive noise. Data from County airport staff indicates that 75% of
airport noise complaints over the last five years was generated by three individuals. The City of
San Luis Obispo is an urban setting with federal and state highways and rail traffic traversing the
City. Community expectations are affected by ambient noise levels and aviation activity is just
one aspect of the active environment. The LUCE and AOZ are consistent with guidance in the
Handbook and with noise contours in the AMP, a long term view of operations and associated
noise contours.
(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.
Response 216: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670-21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning. The LUCE and
AOZ conform with guidance in the Handbook and the AMP.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 168
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 117
(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.
Response 217: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
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 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.
Response 218: The AOZ refers to the ALUP for purposes of airspace protection and provides a
summary of FAR part 77 requirements as well as information related to objects affecting
navigable airspace and other flight hazards.
(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.
Response 219: The AOZ refers to the ALUP for purposes of airspace protection and provides a
summary of FAR part 77 requirements as well as information related to objects affecting
navigable airspace and other flight hazards.
(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.
Response 220: Correction of the PUC section 21688(a) noted. PUC 21659 refers to FAR Part
77 prohibitions.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 169
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 118
(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.
Response 221: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
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 ALUC.
Response 222: The LUCE and AOZ defer to the ALUP and FAA for areas in the RPZ and S-1a
safety zones. No overrule in this area is proposed.
(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.
Response 223: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxxiv. Finding 34
106. Finding 34 provides as follows:
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 170
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 119
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.
Response 224: Four of the ACOS areas provide for additional density in the AASP and the
MASP specific plan areas. The Airport Overlay Zone does not apply to areas previously found
consistent by the ALUC with the ALUP. LUCE update includes a policy to maintain open areas
as part of the AASP and a policy to obtain open space uses outside of the urban reserve line. The
implementing AOZ codifies a previously endorsed Airport Compatible Open Space (ACOS)
Plan to reflect five of the ACOS areas approved by the ALUC as well as a requirement to seek
additional open land areas as part of discretionary land use approvals for projects within the
ALUP boundaries. The two areas subject to future specific plans, Avila Ranch and San Luis
Ranch, have ACOS areas identified and endorsed by the ALUC that will be incorporated in the
development proposals referred to the ALUC for subsequent review. Only one other major
development area is proposed as part of the LUCE, the Madonna at Los Osos Valley Road, and
while it will include a significant amount of open space, the site is primarily in Safety Zone 2
and is comprised of steep hillsides, unsuitable for a designated ACOS area. Additional language
has been incorporated into the AOZ to reflect ALUP direction for size, orientation and
topography for future ACOS areas.
(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."
Response 225: The AOZ has incorporated additional language to reflect ALUP direction for
size, orientation and topography for future ACOS areas. To the extent that the ALUP is
consistent with the stated purpose of the State Aeronautics Act, so is the LUCE and the
associated implementation.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 171
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 120
(c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 34 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 2I°676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 226: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
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.
Response 227: All local factors and operating procedures have been taken into account in
reviewing and assessing any additional safety risk posed to flight operations. Handbook Table
3A: Safety Zone Adjustment Factors (Airport Operational Variables) provides these operational
factors for evaluation of any additional safety risk that they may introduce into the
operation. Specifically, "Non-Precision Approaches Not Aligned with the Runway" is the
category suggested here by the ALUC. This category does not address instrument departures as
suggested by the ALUC. Further, the specific risk factor here are approaches not aligned with a
runway that transition to the runway at low altitude. The only non-precision instrument
approach not aligned with a runway end is the VOR or TACAN-A approach. As stated
previously, this approach has a minimum descent altitude of 1700 feet above mean sea
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 172
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 121
level. This altitude is the traffic pattern altitude for high performance aircraft. This approach
simply allows aircraft to reach the vicinity of the airport where they can enter the traffic pattern
to land in visual conditions. There is no low altitude operations or additional risk factors from
normal visual operations and thereby no additional risk factor consideration for this approach on
safety zones.
(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.
Response 228: As stated previously, there is no use for this procedure because there is a safer
straight-in, non-precision instrument approach to both runway ends. There is an available
approach transition over KIKII and CREPE intersection/approach fixes from the north of the
airport to provide the safest possible instrument transition to a straight-in arrival to 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
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).
Response 229: The ALUP does not specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table
3A of the Handbook. There is no discussion of how topography, geography, special flight
procedures, special purpose aircraft, small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing
thresholds (something that is being corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the
safety zones recommended in the Handbook. For the ALUP’s S-2 safety zone, the ALUP
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 173
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 122
discusses the circle-to-land instrument approaches south of Runway 11-29 as a consideration,
however, 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.
ALUP Section 4.4.3, Delineation of Safety Areas, states the considerations of primary
importance: “a. The flight paths most heavily utilized by aircraft departing from or approaching
to land at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport – Flight paths utilized by a relatively
high proportion of arriving or departing aircraft are associated with an increased accident risk. b.
The flight paths utilized by aircraft departing from or approaching to land at the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport during adverse weather conditions – Maintaining control of an aircraft
in conditions that make visualization of the horizon and the ground impossible is one of the most
challenging tasks that a pilot can face. Flight paths which have been designated by the Federal
Aviation Administration for use during reduced-visibility conditions, therefore, are of significant
concern to the ALUC. c. The anticipated altitude of aircraft operations – A critical operational
element in ensuring the safety of persons and property on the ground is the ability of the pilot of
a disabled airplane to avoid impact with inhabited structures. The likelihood of the pilot
accomplishing this is directly related to the time and gliding distance available, and both of these
are dependent on the aircraft’s altitude at the time a malfunction occurs.” There is no discussion
of how topography, geography, special flight procedures, special purpose aircraft, small aircraft
using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds warrant adjustments to the safety zones
recommended in the Handbook. There is only discussion in the ALUP’s Section 4.4.3 and
subsequent Section 4.4.4 (Delineation of Aviation Safety Sub-Areas) on considerations
surrounding flight maneuvers, which the Handbook’s generic safety zones already take into
account.
Regardless, the LUCE and AOZ at this time have been updated to reflect the geographical
boundaries of the ALUP safety zones. The City is currently only going to overrule the land use
policies of the ALUP in specific safety zones.
(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%.
Response 230: The LUCE and AOZ at this time have been updated to reflect the geographical
boundaries of the ALUP safety zones. The City is currently only going to overrule the land use
policies of the ALUP in specific safety zones.
(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.
Response 231: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 174
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 123
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670-21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
(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.
Response 232: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
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:
(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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 175
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 124
The Handbook does not recommend that these generic zones be utilized for land use
compatibility planning at any specific airport.
Response 233: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670-21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
(b) As also noted in Paragraph 109 supra, only a tiny minority of ALUPs in
California actually adopt the generic safety zones without modification.
Response 234: An assessment of whether any of the safety zone adjustment factors described in
Table 3A of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook apply to SBP was provided in
Section 4.3 of the Johnson Aviation Airport Land Use Compatibility Report and has been copied
into this document as Response #35 for ease of reference. The findings from the Report indicate
no safety zone adjustments from those suggested by the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook are required.
(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.
Response 235: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA-
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 “provide
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 176
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 125
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…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.”
Regardless, the LUCE and AOZ at this time have been updated to reflect the geographical
boundaries of the ALUP safety zones. The City is currently only going to overrule the land use
policies of the ALUP in specific safety zones.
(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.
Response 236: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
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.
Response 237: The Airport Compatibility Report Section 4.3 provides a point-by-point summary
of the findings from the study of the Handbook Table 3A Safety Zone Adjustment Factors. This
analysis can also be found in Response #35 for ease of reference. The analysis looked at actual
safety risk posed to the operation at San Luis Obispo Airport and safety risk adjustments to that
operation that the FAA has made to accommodate any identified risks. The FAA is the regulator
of aviation safety and is solely responsible for establishing operating procedures at a commercial
service, public use airport like San Luis Obispo. It should be noted that the ALUP does not
specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table 3A of the Handbook. There is no
discussion of how topography, geography, special flight procedures, special purpose aircraft,
small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds (something that is being
corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the safety zones recommended in the
Handbook. Response #149 herein provides more details regarding this deficiency in the ALUP.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 177
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 126
(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.
Response 238: The FAA commonly raises the visual glide slope indicator for a runway as a
means of clearing close-in obstructions to a runways final approach area. Runway 29 non-
precision instrument approaches have a number of low and close obstructions that are both
lighted and marked and shown on the approach procedure diagrams (approach plates). The
obstruction clearing standards are found in FAA Order 8260.3B, United States Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). This FAA Order provides a complete manual on the
requirements for establishing and maintaining an instrument procedure relative to obstructions in
the vicinity of a runway. A common practice explained in the TERPS Order to allow for an
instrument approach with low and close obstructions is to raise the visual glide slope indicator
and adjust the threshold crossing altitude for the procedure. While this practice can be used if
terrain is the low and close obstruction, that is not the case at San Luis Obispo. The controlling
obstructions consist of the light poles at the intersection of Buckley Road and Edna Road
(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 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 VOR-A
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 11 RNAV (GPS) Rwy 29
1,040 feet MSL
1,120 feet MSL
1,000 feet MSL
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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 178
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 127
Response 239: The review of non-precision instrument approach procedures based upon the
Handbook Table 3A is looking for added safety risk associated with the way in which these
procedures are flown when close to the ground. The point being made in the Airport
Compatibility Report is that aircraft making use of non-precision instrument approaches at SBP
have straight-in, positive course guidance when flying to the Runway 11/29 ends. The one non-
precision instrument approach procedure that does not provide straight-in, positive course
guidance (VOR or TACAN-A) requires that the airport is in sight and the pilot can fly visually to
the runway using the standard traffic pattern.
(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.
Response 240: The Airport Compatibility Report is focused expressly on any unique operational
activities at SBP that would suggest additional safety risk that is not inherent in the standard
operating procedures to and from airports. The establishment of safe operations and procedures
at San Luis Obispo Airport are regulated by the FAA. The FAA has not identified any unique
safety risks at SBP to modify its operational procedures. It should be noted that the ALUP does
not specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table 3A of the Handbook. There is no
discussion of how topography, geography, special flight procedures, special purpose aircraft,
small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds (something that is being
corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the safety zones recommended in the
Handbook. Response #149 herein provides more details regarding this deficiency in the ALUP.
(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.
Response 241: The Airport Compatibility Report is focused expressly on any unique operational
activities at SBP that would suggest additional safety risk that is not inherent in the standard
operating procedures to and from airports. The establishment of safe operations and procedures
at San Luis Obispo Airport are regulated by the FAA. The FAA has not identified any unique
safety risks at SBP to modify its operational procedures. It should be noted that the ALUP does
not specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table 3A of the Handbook. There is no
discussion of how topography, geography, special flight procedures, special purpose aircraft,
small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds (something that is being
corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the safety zones recommended in the
Handbook. Response #149 herein provides more details regarding this deficiency in the ALUP.
(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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 179
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 128
Response 242: The Handbook states, “While ALUCs 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 generic safety zones already take into account many of the factors common to all airports of
similar characteristics. The Handbook states, “the shapes and sizes of the zones were established
based upon mathematical analyses of the accident location data presented in this and Appendix
E. Not clearly stated in past editions, though, was that another factor also played a part in the
zone delineation and is important to acknowledge here: flight parameters. More specifically, as
an aircraft approaches for landing or climbs out after takeoff, how is it being operated? Where is
it normally flying relative to the runway, and at what altitude? Is it flying straight and level or
turning and climbing or descending? What actions pose the greatest stress on the aircraft and
greatest potential for loss of control or fewest options for recovery if the unexpected occurs?
Where are conflicts between aircraft in flight most likely to happen and potentially create risks
for the land uses below?”
Table 3A in the Handbook, then provides the factors under which adjustments to those sample
zones are warranted. The Airport Compatibility Report Section 4.3 provides a point-by-point
summary of the findings from the study of the Handbook Table 3A Safety Zone Adjustment
Factors. This analysis can also be found in Response #35 for ease of reference. The analysis
looked at actual safety risk posed to the operation at San Luis Obispo Airport and safety risk
adjustments to that operation that the FAA has made to accommodate any identified risks. The
FAA is the regulator of aviation safety and is solely responsible for establishing operating
procedures at a commercial service, public use airport like San Luis Obispo. It should be noted
that the ALUP does not specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table 3A of the
Handbook. There is no discussion of how topography, geography, special flight procedures,
special purpose aircraft, small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds
(something that is being corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the safety zones
recommended in the Handbook. Response #149 herein provides more details regarding this
deficiency in the ALUP.
Regardless, the LUCE and AOZ at this time have been updated to reflect the geographical
boundaries of the ALUP safety zones. The City is currently only going to overrule the land use
policies of the ALUP in specific safety zones.
(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%.
Response 243: The Airport Compatibility Report is focused expressly on any unique operational
activities at SBP that would suggest additional safety risk that is not inherent in the standard
operating procedures to and from airports. The establishment of safe operations and procedures
at San Luis Obispo Airport are regulated by the FAA. The FAA has not identified any unique
safety risks at SBP to modify its operational procedures. It should be noted that the ALUP does
not specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table 3A of the Handbook. There is no
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 180
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 129
discussion of how topography, geography, special flight procedures, special purpose aircraft,
small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds (something that is being
corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the safety zones recommended in the
Handbook. Response #149 herein provides more details regarding this deficiency in the ALUP.
(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.
Response 244: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA-
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 “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…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.”
(i) Based on the foregoing, Finding 37 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 245: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxxviii. Finding 38
114. Finding 38 provides as follows:
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 181
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 130
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.
Response 246: The LUCE and implementing AOZ represent a limited overrule of the ALUP and
the action has been developed only after significant technical evaluation of the particular safety
and noise considerations that apply to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. The
evaluation and documentation of noise and safety hazards associated with the airport has been
documented in the Johnson Report and is based on the adopted Airport Master Plan with
guidance from the most recent version of the Handbook. As previously noted, the ALUP does
not reflect the AMP nor the noise contours and safety evaluation conducted with the EIR for the
AMP. The safety zones identified in the ALUP have had the same configuration since 1977
despite updated information incorporated into the Handbook guidance and updates to the Airport
Master Plan.
(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 the 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."
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 182
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 131
Response 247: Future decisions of land use will either conform to areas where the ALUC has
already provided a determination of consistency or will be based upon use, intensity, and density
limitations defined in the AOZ based upon Caltrans Aeronautics guidance as expressed in the
Handbook and through detailed evaluation of local conditions in the Johnson Aviation Report.
Changes to general plan, specific plans, or zoning will require referral to the ALUC for review
and determination in accordance with PUC Section 21676(b). Provisions in the AOZ refer to the
ALUP for obstruction, overflight, and land use policies for Safety Zones RPZ, and S-1a. The
overrule is limited in scope to smaller areas of Safety Zones S-1b, S-1c and S-2 outside of those
specific plans previously found by the ALUC to be in conformance with the ALUP.
(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.
Response 248: The Handbook states, “While ALUCs 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 generic safety zones already take into account many of the factors common to all airports of
similar characteristics. The Handbook states, “the shapes and sizes of the zones were established
based upon mathematical analyses of the accident location data presented in this and Appendix
E. Not clearly stated in past editions, though, was that another factor also played a part in the
zone delineation and is important to acknowledge here: flight parameters. More specifically, as
an aircraft approaches for landing or climbs out after takeoff, how is it being operated? Where is
it normally flying relative to the runway, and at what altitude? Is it flying straight and level or
turning and climbing or descending? What actions pose the greatest stress on the aircraft and
greatest potential for loss of control or fewest options for recovery if the unexpected occurs?
Where are conflicts between aircraft in flight most likely to happen and potentially create risks
for the land uses below?”
Table 3A in the Handbook, then provides the factors under which adjustments to those sample
zones are warranted. The Airport Compatibility Report Section 4.3 provides a point-by-point
summary of the findings from the study of the Handbook Table 3A Safety Zone Adjustment
Factors. This analysis can also be found in Response #35 for ease of reference. The analysis
looked at actual safety risk posed to the operation at San Luis Obispo Airport and safety risk
adjustments to that operation that the FAA has made to accommodate any identified risks. The
FAA is the regulator of aviation safety and is solely responsible for establishing operating
procedures at a commercial service, public use airport like San Luis Obispo. It should be noted
that the ALUP does not specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table 3A of the
Handbook. There is no discussion of how topography, geography, special flight procedures,
special purpose aircraft, small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds
(something that is being corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the safety zones
recommended in the Handbook. Response #149 herein provides more details regarding this
deficiency in the ALUP.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 183
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 132
Regardless, the LUCE and AOZ at this time have been updated to reflect the geographical
boundaries of the ALUP safety zones. The City is currently only going to overrule the land use
policies of the ALUP in specific safety zones.
(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%.
Response 249: Regardless of the deficiencies noted in the previous response, the LUCE and
AOZ at this time have been updated to reflect the geographical boundaries of the ALUP safety
zones. The City is currently only going to overrule the land use policies of the ALUP in specific
safety zones.
(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.
Response 250: The Johnson Report documents safety and noise considerations associated with
the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. Future decisions of land use will either conform
to areas where the ALUC has already provided a determination of consistency or will be based
upon use, intensity, and density limitations defined in the AOZ based upon Caltrans Aeronautics
guidance as expressed in the Handbook and through detailed evaluation of local conditions in the
Johnson Aviation Report. Changes to general plan, specific plans, or zoning will require referral
to the ALUC for review and determination in accordance with PUC Section 21676(b).
Provisions in the AOZ refer to the ALUP for obstruction, overflight, and land use policies for
Safety Zones RPZ, and S-1a. The overrule is limited in scope to smaller areas of Safety Zones
S-1b, S-1c and S-2 outside of those specific plans previously found by the ALUC to be in
conformance with the ALUP. The State Aeronautics Act does not require the overrule to comply
with the ALUP’s method of addressing noise and safety concerns but rather leaves the land use
authority with the local agency provided the public health, safety, and welfare is protected and
the land use measures minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards
within areas around public airports. The LUCE policies and programs including implementation
through the AOZ do provide such protections.
(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.
Response 251: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxix. Finding 39
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 184
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 133
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.
Response 252: The provisions in the Land Use Element call for implementation standards that
address obstructions and other hazards to flight. The AOZ has been amended to state that
airspace protection standards regarding obstruction and hazards to air navigation are defined in
the ALUP and apply to land uses and development within the AOZ. Therefore to the extent that
the ALUP implements and meets the requirements of PUC Sections to minimize the public’s
exposure to aviation safety hazards, so does the LUCE update and associated implementation
through the AOZ.
117. Analysis of Finding 39:
(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.
Response 253: The provisions in the Land Use Element call for implementation standards that
address obstructions and other hazards to flight. The AOZ has been amended to state that
airspace protection standards regarding obstruction and hazards to air navigation are defined in
the ALUP and apply to land uses and development within the AOZ. Therefore to the extent that
the ALUP implements and meets the requirements of PUC Sections to minimize the public’s
exposure to aviation safety hazards, so does the LUCE update and associated implementation
through the AOZ.
(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.
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 185
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 134
Response 254: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xl. 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.
Response 255: The provisions in the Land Use Element call for implementation standards that
address obstructions and other hazards to flight. The AOZ has been amended to state that
airspace protection standards regarding obstruction and hazards to air navigation are defined in
the ALUP and apply to land uses and development within the AOZ. Therefore to the extent that
the ALUP implements and meets the requirements of PUC Sections to minimize the public’s
exposure to aviation safety hazards, so does the LUCE update and associated implementation
through the AOZ.
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.
Response 256: The provisions in the Land Use Element call for implementation standards that
address obstructions and other hazards to flight. The AOZ has been amended to state that
airspace protection standards regarding obstruction and hazards to air navigation are defined in
the ALUP and apply to land uses and development within the AOZ. Therefore to the extent that
the ALUP implements and meets the requirements of PUC Sections to minimize the public’s
exposure to aviation safety hazards, so does the LUCE update and associated implementation
through the AOZ.
(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.
Response 257: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 186
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 135
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xii. 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 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.
Response 258: Caltrans guidance through the Handbook states, “More important is to give
people who may be annoyed by airport noise timely information with which to assess how living
in the vicinity of an airport would affect them. In this respect, developing overflight
compatibility policies becomes less about restricting land uses, and more focused on informing
prospective property owners of the presence of an airport and making them aware of the
potential for noise impacts associated with overflying aircraft.”5 The statement by the ALUC
above which references the safety hazards of overflight overstates the issue and points out the
inherent deficiencies in the ALUP that mixes noise issues with safety issues. Despite this finding
by the ALUC, the overflight provisions in the AOZ 17.57.080 have been amended to defer to the
disclosure requirements in the ALUP. Therefore to the extent that the ALUP implements and
meets the requirements of PUC Sections to minimize the public’s exposure to aviation safety
hazards so does the LUCE update and associated implementation through the AOZ.
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.
Response 259: Caltrans guidance through the Handbook states, “More important is to give
people who may be annoyed by airport noise timely information with which to assess how living
5 Section 4.3 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, page 4-13
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 187
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 136
in the vicinity of an airport would affect them. In this respect, developing overflight
compatibility policies becomes less about restricting land uses, and more focused on informing
prospective property owners of the presence of an airport and making them aware of the
potential for noise impacts associated with overflying aircraft.”6 The statement by the ALUC
above which references the safety hazards of overflight overstates the issue and points out the
inherent deficiencies in the ALUP that mixes noise issues with safety issues. Despite this finding
by the ALUC, the overflight provisions in the AOZ 17.57.080 have been amended to defer to the
disclosure requirements in the ALUP. Therefore to the extent that the ALUP implements and
meets the requirements of PUC Sections to minimize the public’s exposure to aviation safety
hazards so does the LUCE update and associated implementation through the AOZ.
(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.
Response 260: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xiii. 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.
Response 261: The last sentence of section 17.57.090 that references the Handbook zones has
been struck and additional language has been incorporated into the AOZ to reflect ALUP
direction for size, orientation and topography for future ACOS areas.
6 Section 4.3 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, page 4-13
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 188
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 137
123. Analysis of Finding 42:
(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.
Response 262: Four of the ACOS areas provide for additional density in the AASP and the
MASP specific plan areas. The Airport Overlay Zone does not apply to areas previously found
consistent by the ALUC with the ALUP. LUCE update includes a policy to maintain open areas
as part of the AASP and a policy to obtain open space uses outside of the urban reserve line. The
implementing AOZ codifies a previously endorsed Airport Compatible Open Space (ACOS)
Plan to reflect five of the ACOS areas approved by the ALUC as well as a requirement to seek
additional open land areas as part of discretionary land use approvals for projects within the
ALUP boundaries. The two areas subject to future specific plans, Avila Ranch and San Luis
Ranch, have ACOS areas identified and endorsed by the ALUC that will be incorporated in the
development proposals referred to the ALUC for subsequent review. Only one other major
development area is proposed as part of the LUCE, the Madonna at Los Osos Valley Road, and
while it will include a significant amount of open space, the site is primarily in Safety Zone 2
and is comprised of steep hillsides, unsuitable for a designated ACOS area. Additional language
has been incorporated into the AOZ to reflect ALUP direction for size, orientation and
topography for future ACOS areas.
(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."
Response 263: Four of the ACOS areas provide for additional density in the AASP and the
MASP specific plan areas. The Airport Overlay Zone does not apply to areas previously found
consistent by the ALUC with the ALUP. LUCE update includes a policy to maintain open areas
as part of the AASP and a policy to obtain open space uses outside of the urban reserve line. The
implementing AOZ codifies a previously endorsed Airport Compatible Open Space (ACOS)
Plan to reflect five of the ACOS areas approved by the ALUC as well as a requirement to seek
additional open land areas as part of discretionary land use approvals for projects within the
ALUP boundaries. The two areas subject to future specific plans, Avila Ranch and San Luis
Ranch, have ACOS areas identified and endorsed by the ALUC that will be incorporated in the
development proposals referred to the ALUC for subsequent review. Only one other major
development area is proposed as part of the LUCE, the Madonna at Los Osos Valley Road, and
while it will include a significant amount of open space, the site is primarily in Safety Zone 2
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 189
Response to ALUC Letter on Overrule
Page 138
and is comprised of steep hillsides, unsuitable for a designated ACOS area. Additional language
has been incorporated into the AOZ to reflect ALUP direction for size, orientation and
topography for future ACOS areas.
(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.
Response 264: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
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.
Response 265: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
Attachments to ALUC Comment letter:
Exhibit A: Caltrans Response to LUCE Draft EIR
Disposition: Responded to in LUCE Final EIR
Exhibit B: ALUC Notice of Determination in Response to LUCE/AOZ Referral
Disposition: Received by City on July 16, 2014
Exhibit C: City Notice of Intent to Overrule
Disposition: Copy of action taken San Luis Obispo City Council on August 19, 2014
Exhibit D: ALUC Subcommittee Critique of Johnson Aviation Report
Disposition: General Responses provided by Johnson Aviation on June 16, 2014
Exhibit E: Caltrans letter indicating City should not certify EIR until overrule has occurred
Disposition: City Council certified EIR on September 16, 2014.
********End of Response********
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 190
1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 14, 2014
TO: City Council
FROM: Derek Johnson, Director, Community Development Department
PREPARED BY: Nick Johnson, Johnson Aviation
SUBJECT: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RESPONSE TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS SEPTEMBER 17, 2014
COMMENTS AND SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 CORRECTION LETTER REGARDING
THE CITY’S INTENT TO OVERRULE THE SAN LUIS OBISPO 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
Discussion
The City received a letter from Caltrans on September 17, 2014 and a correction letter from
Caltrans on September 22, 2014 in response to the City’s letter to Caltrans on August 22, 2014
transmitting the City’s proposed intent to overrule the ALUC determination of inconsistency
pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b). The letters by Caltrans raise a number of
concerns and make many factual and legal misstatements that it is necessary to address each
point for the record. The purpose of this report is to provide factual information and the proper
legal standard of review for local jurisdictions considering overrule of an ALUC determination.
To aid in understanding of the legal standard of review, Lori Ballance with Gatzke Dillon and
Ballance, LLP, a land use and environmental attorney specializing in California Airport Land
Use issues has been retained by the City. Ms. Ballance provided legal guidance to Caltrans in
the development of the 2011 update of the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(Handbook). Because of her expertise in this area of law, we have asked that she summarize for
ease of public reference the statutory framework surrounding the ALUC consistency and
overrule process. In response, Lori has provided a memo titled, “Public Memorandum
Regarding LUCE to Overrule Process.” This memo is important to the review of the process
and framework issues raised by Caltrans and is intended to aid CalTrans in understanding the
City’s revised approach and the Council and the public in evaluating the issues raised and the
City’s responses to those issues. In responding to the Caltrans comments related to the legal
requirements we have referenced Ms. Ballance’s memo (Attachment A) additional support for
the City’s position on the matter.
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 191
2
SPECIFIC ISSUES
1. Page 1, Paragraph 1, second sentence: “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 [emphasis added].”
Response 1: The City is proposing to overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination
specifically relative to noise and to allow for a limited amount of development within
three (3) of the ALUP safety zones, in a manner that would be in conflict with the ALUP,
but that would not conflict with Guidelines provided in the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook. The City is not proposing to usurp the ALUP or the ALUC’s powers
as is suggested at several points throughout the Caltrans letter. Rather, the City is
exercising its rights to set local land use policies that may be in conflict with ALUC
objectives, as provided in Section 21676(b) of the State Aeronautics Act after an
exhaustive process of conducting analysis based on verifiable data and objective,
independent airport operations projections.
2. Page 1, Paragraph 3: “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)(l)&(2).”
Response 2: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land
use planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters
and contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with
State Law (See Ballance Memo on Legal Requirements and Legal Framework).
3. Page 1, Paragraph 4: “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 conflicts and safety hazards, a risk that the City should not be
willing to accept.”
Response 3: The City has considered all relevant facts regarding airport land use
compatibility and safety, as well as balanced the City’s other land use and circulation
considerations (such as the desire to promote compact urban infill development within
the existing urban reserve line and to further its agricultural and open space preservation
objectives) in its proposed decision to overrule the ALUC determination in this matter.
Factors offered above – level of service, location, accident history, obstructions, hazards,
and noise – have all been evaluated and considered. LUCE policies and programs and
the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) reflect appropriate land uses, density and intensity
limitations to reflect concerns related to aircraft operation and the overrule is limited in
scope and geographic area. The LUCE and AOZ reflect the Airport Land Use Plan
(ALUP) boundaries and refers to the ALUP for many provisions, including restrictions in
the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) and Safety Area S-1a. When making land use
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 192
3
decisions, the City has a broader set of issues and community priorities to consider in
addition to airport compatibility. This is why the statutes provide that the City may
overrule the ALUC determination, and in this case, an overrule is particularly appropriate
because the ALUP does not include or establish a verifiable factual and data-based
foundation for its land use policies.
Other factors considered include a note from the Handbook, Page 4-17 which offers
information particularly appropriate for consideration at San Luis Obispo: “Note that this
urban versus rural distinction is not limited just to differences between one airport and
another, it may also be true between various portions of individual airport’s environs.
Consequently, it may be reasonable for compatibility criteria to allow comparatively
intensive development and/or infill development in one part of an airport’s vicinity, but
not in another. If an ALUC chooses to take this approach, however, sufficient reasoning
should be provided.”
The City of San Luis Obispo has thoughtfully addressed this approach suggested by the
Handbook in the course of its LUCE process. The City has likewise reached out to the
ALUC for over two years to bring these ideas to the table for consideration. After
numerous friendly requests, the City was forced to make a Public Records Act request of
both the ALUC 1 and Caltrans 2 to attempt to simply review a copy of the proposed update
to the ALUC’s Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Despite these attempts by the City to
participate in the ALUP update process, both the ALUC and Caltrans refused to provide a
copy of the ALUP update. Only after the City announced its intent to overrule the ALUC
determination on the LUCE did the ALUC finally make a public release of a copy of their
draft ALUP. This approach does not demonstrate an open and inclusive planning
process. The City maintains that moving forward based on data, verifiable facts and
sound planning principles is the best option available, and hopes the ALUC will be open
to this approach as the ALUP is updated, so that both the community and the ALUC can
work towards a common goal of a vibrant and safe airport and surrounding community.
4. Page 1, Paragraph 6: “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.”
Response 4: This statement is contrary to state law. The outcome of the City's
overruling is that the LUCE will take effect as if the ALUC had approved it or found it
consistent with the ALUP. Subsequent ALUC review of individual development projects
related to the overruling become voluntary (PUC Section 21676.5(b)). If the City did
NOT overrule the ALUC, then the ALUC could require the City to submit all land use
actions, regulations, and permits to the ALUC for review (Section 21676.5(a)). The
City’s overrule is limited in scope and does not usurp the ALUC’s statutory authority; it
1 Public Records Act request to ALUC for copy of ALUP update via email to County 2-26-14 was denied by County
in writing on 3-10-14. 2 Public Records Act request was submitted via email on 3-24-14 to Caltrans for copy of ALUP draft submitted by
ALUC to Caltrans for review. Initial response to comply put in abeyance prior to receipt of document and no
subsequent response provided despite repeated contacts for status by City staff.
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 193
4
merely reflects an exercise of the City’s statutory and constitutional land use authority.
Future development that is inconsistent with the LUCE, or that otherwise requires a
General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan or rezone, would be referred to the ALUC for
review as required by PUC Section 21676(b).
5. Page 1 and 2, Finding 3: “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 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.”
Response 5: This comment acknowledges that the existing ALUP is outdated and
flawed, but that an update is being prepared. As a practical matter, data and other input
from the City should be essential to the ALUC's preparation of the updated ALUP.
Adoption and, ultimately, successful implementation of the updated ALUP will require
cooperation by the ALUC as well. The City is not required to "wait" until the ALUP
Update is approved prior to updating its General Plan. Rather, the ALUC should be
involved in informal negotiations with the City in order to resolve any land use conflicts.
These discussions did occur over the last two and half years and the City and the ALUC
have been unable to reach consensus and resolve differences regarding the technical data
and information to inform and resolve planning issues. The ALUC and the City have
different objectives with respect to planning for land uses around airports. For the
ALUC, protection of the airports from incompatible development is its sole objective.
The City shares this important objective and must also consider broader community
needs in land use decisions. Despite this difference, achieving a mutually acceptable
compatibility plan continues to be the City's goal. As in many cases in other counties in
the state, this may ultimately require a compromise which will adequately protect the
airport from incompatible land uses yet reasonably respond to the community’s
development goals.
The Division is not required to determine whether or not an ALUP meets the
requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. Rather, Caltrans is only required to provide
approval for the ALUC to use an ALP (instead of a master plan) for purposes of
compatibility planning. City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commission, 210 Cal.App.3d 1277. The Division does not have approval authority over
an ALUP.
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 194
5
6. Page 2, Finding 4: “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.”
Response 6: Although ALUCs are not required to amend their compatibility plans in
response to the Handbooks (2002 and 2011), Caltrans generally encourages ALUCs to
review and update their compatibility plans at least every five years or more frequently
for communities where conditions are changing rapidly. Also, the 2002 Handbook
introduced completely different concepts for safety zones - it is disingenuous for Caltrans
to say that safety zones put in place 37 years ago do not need to be revisited in the
context of the new Handbook recommendations with respect to safety. Also, and as
indicated above, the question is not just if there has been a change to the airport, but also
whether conditions in the community have changed. Just as airports update their master
plans periodically to respond to changing needs in the aviation industry, so too should the
ALUC review and revise as necessary the ALUP. Significant additional data, analysis
and validation of the aircraft accident and risk analysis information have been updated in
the Handbook in both 2002, and 2011. Further, San Luis Obispo County adopted the new
Master Plan and environmental document along with constructing two significant runway
extension/improvements, yet the ALUC has not incorporated these significant changes
into its ALUP.
7. Page 2, Finding 5: “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.”
Response 7: Both the ALUC and CalTrans agree with the City's conclusion that the
runway alignments included in the current plan are incorrect and require revision. The
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states on page 3-16, “The dimension of
Zone 1 should reflect the runway protection zone as identified on an airport layout plan,
and described in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13: Airport Design.” If the safety
zones are not accurately aligned, this requirement cannot be met. This disparity alone
could warrant an overrule of the current ALUP.
8. Page 2, Finding 6: “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 TAF, please set
forth the referenced authority.”
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 195
6
Response 8: Caltrans ignores the foundation of the FAA’s requirements for approving
master plan forecasts, while affirming the State’s requirement that ALUPs be based on an
approved master plan. Section 21675 requires the following: "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." The approval of an airport master plan can only occur after compliance with
the CEQA, which includes preparation and adoption of a negative declaration (ND) or
mitigated negative declaration (MND) and/or preparation and certification of an
environmental impact report (EIR) for the Airport Master Plan. CEQA statutes and
guidelines state that an EIR shall be considered by every public agency prior to its
approval or disapproval of a project. “Project” shall include the carrying out or approval
of a plan that expands or enlarges an existing publicly owned airport.
The Airport Master Plan Update for San Luis Obispo Airport was completed in 2003,
revised in 2004, and accepted by the Board of Supervisors of the County in 2005. In
2006 the County completed and certified an Environmental Assessment (EA) and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for extension of the main Runway 11/29 and other
suggested Airport improvements. As per the EIR, “In accordance with FAA policy, the
FAA will use this EA for ALP approval and future federal funding approvals over the
next five-year period…in accordance with CEQA, San Luis Obispo County is required to
be concerned with the ‘whole of the action,’ which is defined as all projects identified in
the Master Plan program. Therefore, for purposes of this EA/EIR, the County’s
obligation under CEQA is to include both phases of the Master Plan.”
As part of the EIR, a comprehensive analysis of noise, using the forecasts prepared for
the airport master plan, was completed. This noise analysis was validated in the Airport
Land Use Compatibility Report also using the forecasts prepared for the Airport Master
Plan. Although it is stated in the ALUP that data was constructed from information and
projections presented in the Airport Maser Plan, the noise contours source presented in
the ALUP are cited as a noise study completed by Brown-Buntin Associates in April,
2001. A public records act request to both the County (10-21-13) and a direct request to
Brown-Buntin (2-26-14) failed to locate this study, which was used by the ALUC to set
noise contours based upon a hypothetical maximum use of airport runways. As seen in
Figure 6, the noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared for
the Airport Master Plan. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum
acceptable residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours
from the cited study from Brown-Buntin Associates instead of the Airport Master Plan
EIR. The Land Use Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport
noise exposure using the noise contours from the study from Brown-Buntin Associates
instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The Margarita Area Planning Standards for
Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are also based on the noise contours
from the study from Brown-Buntin Associates instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR.
9. Page 2, Finding 7: “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
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 196
7
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.”
Response 9: While there is no requirement for the ALUP to use forecast numbers from
the TAF, the ALUP must be based on the AMP. Caltrans continues to ignore the FAA’s
requirements for approving master plan forecasts. The AMP was completed in 2003,
revised in 2004, and accepted by the Board of Supervisors of the County in 2005. In the
10 years since this planning was completed, much has changed in the aviation industry
and the local aviation activity at SBP. As a result, the forecasts of aviation activity
reflected in the Airport Master Plan Update require significant updates to better reflect
the existing conditions at SBP, and to better align with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s (FAA’s) official Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for the facility.
However, for the purposes of this LUCE Update, the City is relying on the SBP Master
Plan forecasts of aviation activity as a reasonably foreseeable projection of ultimate
aviation activity sufficient for long-term land use planning purposes, without regard for
the date of 2023 because it is uncertain when the forecast levels of activity will be
reached and because growth must be consistent with the capital improvement plan for the
Airport.
10. Page 2, Finding 8: “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
geom etric 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 purpose 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.”
Response 10: The City agrees with Caltrans that the ALUC should be including the
revision of its safety zones as a foundational part of its ALUP update. While ALUCs 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).
Caltrans concedes that only four of the ALUP’s five safety zones are easily definable
geometric shapes. Furthermore, the zones increase in size, rather than decrease in size,
despite decreased risk from the aircraft operations with further distance from the airport.
ALUP Maneuvering Zone S-1b, due to the fact that its size, configuration and land use
criteria are inconsistent with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines
and criteria, has no such equivalent zone in the Handbook. This zone is also
unsubstantiated by the airport’s activity forecasts as used for noise planning purposes,
historical accident data at SBP, or safety zone adjustment factors as described in Table
3A of the Handbook. ALUP Sideline Zone S-1c, due to the fact that its size,
configuration and land use criteria are more restrictive than California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria, has no such equivalent zone in the Handbook.
This zone is also unsubstantiated by the airport’s activity forecasts as used for noise
planning purposes, historical accident data at SBP, or safety zone adjustment factors as
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 197
8
described in Table 3A of the Handbook. ALUP Zone S-2 is not consistent with Zone 6 –
Traffic Pattern of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and
criteria. Safety Area S-2 is really just the ALUP’s Airport Land Use Planning Area. The
ALUP states, “the dimensions of this area were defined in 1977 and have not changed. In
general terms, the Planning Area is an irregular oval, which is aligned with its long axis
in a northwest southeast direction, parallel to the centerline of Runway 11-29 at the
Airport. The dimensions of the oval are approximately 31,600 feet by 20,850 feet. The
Planning Area extends from a point approximately ½ mile southeast of the community of
Edna on the southeast to West Oceanaire Drive in the Laguna Lake Subdivision on the
northwest. To the north of the Airport, the Planning Area extends to Sinsheimer School
and Edgewood Drive in the City of San Luis Obispo. To the southeast and east, the
boundary of the Planning Area is close to the ridgeline of the high terrain.” Safety Area
S-2 is the outermost safety zone and should be the equivalent of Zone 6 in the Handbook.
The size, configuration and land use criteria of Safety Area S-2 should be consistent with
Zone 6, and not based on a Planning Area established by the ALUC in 1977. Caltrans
has provided no further clarity or factual technical detail as to the basis of its support for
the ALUP safety zones. Notwithstanding these facts, at this time the City is choosing to
accept the currently defined safety zones from the ALUP, but allow land uses and
densities that are consistent with the State Aeronautics Act with guidance from the
Handbook as specified in LUCE policies and the related AOZ. Nonetheless, the City will
work with the ALUC during its ongoing ALUP update.
11. Page 2, Finding 17: “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.”
Response 11: Although the City is proposing an overrule for the LUCE, this overrule is
consistent with state law. The ability of a local agency to overrule an ALUC
determination is contained in six separate sections of the ALUC statutes. The law
provides for the authority necessary for the City to overrule an ALUC determination.
The LUCE and implementing AOZ reflect the boundaries of the ALUP and defer to the
ALUP’s standards for the Runway Protection Zone and Safety Zone S-1a. The LUCE
includes land use development parameters for only a limited area covered by Safety
Zones S-1b, S-1c, and S-2 (outside of the specific plans previously determined by the
ALUC to be consistent with the ALUP)for which the City is overruling the ALUC.
Future changes to the General Plan, Specific Plans, or rezonings not covered by the
LUCE will be referred to the ALUC for a consistency determination in compliance with
21676 (b). The City is not undermining or usurping ALUC's authority; rather, it is simply
following state law with respect to one of the avenues available to a public agency for
land use compatibility planning around airports.
12. Pages 2-3, Finding 18: “Finding 18 states the ALUP has safety zones that are
unnecessary or too large without justification. This finding points to the Airport
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 198
9
Compatibility Report prepared by the City. This report 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 safety 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 safety 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 law to do so.”
Response 12: The Compatibility Report prepared by the City simply collects the facts
and information from the County’s adopted Airport Master Plan and EIR and places
those facts in context with the State Aeronautics Act in order to ensure any City land use
actions are consistent with the purpose of the Act. The findings of the Compatibility
Report are the same as those of the Master Plan, which is required to be considered by the
ALUC when preparing an update to the ALUP, but appears to have been ignored by the
ALUC. The Handbook indicates that each safety zone should be as compact as possible
(the percentage of accident points per acre, its capture rate, should be maximized). The
Handbook provides examples of different safety zone configurations to assist in the
delineation of safety zones for a given airport. The Handbook states, “While ALUCs 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 generic safety zones already take into account many of the factors common to all
airports of similar characteristics. The Handbook states, “the shapes and sizes of the
zones were established based upon mathematical analyses of the accident location data
presented in this and Appendix E. Not clearly stated in past editions, though, was that
another factor also played a part in the zone delineation and is important to acknowledge
here: flight parameters. More specifically, as an aircraft approaches for landing or
climbs out after takeoff, how is it being operated? Where is it normally flying relative to
the runway, and at what altitude? Is it flying straight and level or turning and climbing or
descending? What actions pose the greatest stress on the aircraft and greatest potential
for loss of control or fewest options for recovery if the unexpected occurs? Where are
conflicts between aircraft in flight most likely to happen and potentially create risks for
the land uses below?”
The Handbook then states that adjustments to the safety zones recommended by the
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook should be made if there are certain
physical and operational characteristics at the airport such as high terrain, roads, or non-
standard instrument approach procedures. These characteristics are summarized in Table
3A of the Handbook, which is included in this report as Appendix A, Handbook Safety
Zone Adjustment Factors. The ALUP does not specifically discuss the adjustment factors
found in Table 3A of the Handbook. There is no discussion of how topography,
geography, special flight procedures, special purpose aircraft, small aircraft using long
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 199
10
runways, or displaced landing thresholds warrant adjustments to the safety zones
recommended in the Handbook.
For the ALUP’s S-2 safety zone, the ALUP discusses the circle-to-land instrument
approaches south of Runway 11-29 as a consideration, however, the circling minimum
altitudes for these procedures are at standard traffic pattern altitudes- the safety risks of
which are captured in recommended use density and intensity limitations from Safety
Zone 6 in the Handbook. Even though these procedures are available and only allowed to
the south side of the airport, there are safer, straight-in instrument approaches established
by the FAA and available for both runway ends of Runway 11-29. An analysis of the
Handbook Safety Zone Adjustment Factors for SBP was completed in the Airport
Compatibility Report. The findings indicated that no safety zone adjustments from those
recommended by the Handbook were required. The Airport Compatibility Report did not
indicate that the reasons why these safety zones were adjusted for SBP do, in fact, exist;
that statement in the CalTrans comment letter is factually inaccurate.
Caltrans has provided no further clarity or factual technical detail as to the basis of its
support for the ALUP safety zones. Regardless, at this time the City is choosing to
accept the defined safety zones from the ALUP but allow land uses and densities that are
consistent with the State Aeronautics Act with guidance from the Handbook as specified
in LUCE policies and the related AOZ. Nonetheless, the City will work with the ALUC
during its ongoing ALUP update.
13. Page 3, Findings 19, 20 and 21: “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 TAP for SBP are flat line projections and not realistic. The best forecasts to use are
those provided by the SBP Master Plan.”
Response 13: Caltrans misstates the City’s finding in this comment. The City’s finding
provides background operational facts for context and then concludes, “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 City, the ALUC and Caltrans all agree that the ALUC is required to use the Master
Plan and the forecasts contained in the document along with the EIR analysis of any
impacts based on recommended development in the AMP.
14. Page 3, Finding 37: “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
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 200
11
"no safety zone adjustments required" from those recommended by the Handbook for
each of the following bullet points:”
Response 14: While the Division disagrees with six out of the eight findings in the
Airport Compatibility Report regarding Table 3A in the Handbook, it should be noted
that the ALUC did not adjust its safety zones based on the recommendations in Table 3A
of the Handbook. ALUP Section 4.4.3, Delineation of Safety Areas, states the
considerations of primary importance:
“a. The flight paths most heavily utilized by aircraft departing from or
approaching to land at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport – Flight
paths utilized by a relatively high proportion of arriving or departing aircraft are
associated with an increased accident risk. b. The flight paths utilized by aircraft
departing from or approaching to land at the San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport during adverse weather conditions – Maintaining control of an aircraft in
conditions that make visualization of the horizon and the ground impossible is one
of the most challenging tasks that a pilot can face. Flight paths which have been
designated by the Federal Aviation Administration for use during reduced-
visibility conditions, therefore, are of significant concern to the ALUC. c. The
anticipated altitude of aircraft operations – A critical operational element in
ensuring the safety of persons and property on the ground is the ability of the pilot
of a disabled airplane to avoid impact with inhabited structures. The likelihood of
the pilot accomplishing this is directly related to the time and gliding distance
available, and both of these are dependent on the aircraft’s altitude at the time a
malfunction occurs.”
There is no discussion of how topography, geography, special flight procedures, special
purpose aircraft, small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds
warrant adjustments to the safety zones recommended in the Handbook. There is only
discussion in the ALUP’s Section 4.4.3 and subsequent Section 4.4.4 (Delineation of
Aviation Safety Sub-Areas) on considerations surrounding flight maneuvers, which the
Handbook’s generic safety zones already take into account. The Handbook states, “the
shapes and sizes of the zones were established based upon mathematical analyses of the
accident location data presented in this and Appendix E. Not clearly stated in past
editions, though, was that another factor also played a part in the zone delineation and is
important to acknowledge here: flight parameters. More specifically, as an aircraft
approaches for landing or climbs out after takeoff, how is it being operated? Where is it
normally flying relative to the runway, and at what altitude? Is it flying straight and level
or turning and climbing or descending? What actions pose the greatest stress on the
aircraft and greatest potential for loss of control or fewest options for recovery if the
unexpected occurs? Where are conflicts between aircraft in flight most likely to happen
and potentially create risks for the land uses below?” The City strongly disagrees with
the Division’s assertion that the analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility Report of
Table 3A in the Handbook and the City’s overrule is “contrary to PUC section 21670,
and… will fail to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and create a
disorderly expansion of the airport.” Both the City and Consultant that prepared the
Airport Compatibility Report spent a great deal of time ensuring that all Federal, State,
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 201
12
and local laws and guidance material was followed, including: FAA AC 150/5070-6B,
Airport Master Plans, FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation
Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150,
Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program, FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and
Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983), FAA AC 150-5190-4A, A Model Zoning
Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports (1987), FAA Order 8260.3B
(June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections
5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California Public Utilities
Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE Update
follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA-
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise
contours presented in the EA/EIR, guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that best protect
persons and property in the vicinity of airports, and review of local conditions.
While the City continues to question the dimensions of the ALUP safety zones, due to
the time sensitive nature of the LUCE Update, the City is willing to accept the ALUP’s
geographical boundaries of its existing safety zones and for the time being is overruling
only the ALUP’s land use policies, specifically with regards to ALUP Zones S-2 so that
the land use criteria are more consistent with Zone 6 – Traffic Pattern of the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria, and limited areas of S1-b
and S-1c outside of specific plans previously determined to be consistent with the ALUP
by the ALUC. The City hopes that the ALUC will work with the City on its update of the
ALUP. The City also hopes the ALUC will consider all of the discrepancies in its current
ALUP, as pointed out in the Airport Compatibility Report, so that the next ALUP is more
consistent with the policies recommended by the Handbook.
15. Page 3, Finding 37, 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 3A: Safety Zone Adjustment Factors contained in the
Handbook to warrant a safety zone adjustment.”
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 202
13
Response 15: The terrain does not change the flight path on the right downwind for
Runway 29. While aircraft do fly a downwind outside Islay Hill, this is not outside the
FAA’s recommendations for a standard air traffic pattern. Standard traffic patterns are
typically flown to the left 1,000 feet above airport elevation, and approximately a ½ mile
to 1 mile out from the landing runway. At airports with air traffic control towers (such as
at SBP), the tower often instructs the pilot to enter the pattern at any point or straight-in
for landing. Figure 10 in the ALUP, Aircraft Flight Paths, illustrates the typical flight
patterns flown at SBP. The arrival and departure tracks used for EA/EIR noise modeling
also show typical flight patterns to the right and left of Runway 11/29. The distance from
the runway is not increased or decreased to avoid any terrain; the altitudes above airport
elevation are also not adjusted for terrain.
16. Page 3 and 4, Finding 37, 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.
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 3A: Safety Zone Adjustment Factors
contained in the Handbook and allows for a safety zone adjustment.”
Response 16: The response by Caltrans on this comment is in direct contradiction to all
modern land use planning, Caltrans guidance in the Handbook and Caltrans own
investment in similar systems throughout all of its districts in the State (as led by District
11) that take full advantage of GIS systems to ensure accurate mapping of land use
among many important functions. Accurate mapping of land use restrictions and impacts
ensures that valuable land resources are not unnecessarily encumbered by restrictions that
are not clearly delineated so that the public can make informed land use decisions based
upon actual facts and information. The Master Plan fully researched aircraft flight
patterns approaching and departing San Luis Obispo Airport. This information provides
clear areas of operation that allow for equally clear application of safety zone operational
parameters explicitly detailed in Handbook Pages 4-20 to 4-25.
In addition, the LUCE update, by focusing on future infill within the urban reserve line,
preserves visual clues for approaching aircraft. The existing state and federal highways
and major local roadways that help define the city’s form – Highway 101, Highway 1,
State Route 227, Los Osos Valley road, Foothill Blvd., and Buckley Road to the south of
the airport – will not change. The city’s existing greenbelt and policies to preserve the
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 203
14
open space directly around the airport and outside of the urban reserve line have been
reaffirmed and strengthened through the LUCE update process.
17. Page 4, Finding 37, Instrument Approach Procedures: 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 RNA V (GPS) RWY 11, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, LOC RWY 11 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 chatted for SBP including RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, RNAV (GPS) RWY
29, LOC RWY 11 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 T ACAN-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 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. Air traffic control tower staff estimates utilizing Runway 11
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.”
Response 17: This statement by Caltrans offers no new information about these
procedures that is not covered in the Master Plan or that points to any degradation of
safety as a result of their use beyond that studied and stated in the Airport Compatibility
Report. Simply because a type of procedure exists or is in use does not by itself change
the risk profile or safety setting of the operation for the surrounding community. The
caution in the Handbook Table 3A is specifically for airports where only one straight-in
approach procedure is available to the airport (See Handbook, Page 3-22). This is clearly
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 204
15
not the case at SBP as described fully in the Airport Compatibility Report and reiterated
in the Caltrans letter. The purpose of the Airport Compatibility Report is to specifically
research and address operational issues at San Luis Obispo Airport that could degrade a
level of safety in the community that is assumed in standard operations and accounted for
in safety zones designed to address actual safety risks and their potential consequences.
18. Page 5, Finding 37, 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.”
Response 18: This statement by Caltrans offers no new information about noise
abatement procedures that is not covered in the Master Plan or points to any degradation
of safety as a result of their use beyond that studied and stated in the Airport
Compatibility Report. Simply because a type of procedure exists or is in use does not by
itself change the risk profile or safety setting of the operation for the surrounding
community. As stated in the Airport Compatibility Report, the voluntary noise abatement
procedures at San Luis Obispo remind pilots to fly proper standard arrival and departure
procedures. Further, these noise abatement procedures tend to keep aircraft on the
Runway 11/29 centerlines extended and most closely align with the safety risk profiles of
the Caltrans safety zones. These procedures specifically request that pilots not overfly
Los Ranchos Elementary School in the unincorporated County area to the south of the
airport thereby reducing the safety risk on this sensitive community land use.
19. Page 5, Finding 37, 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
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 205
16
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 outbound 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.”
Response 19: This statement by Caltrans offers no new information about special use
aircraft that is not covered in the Master Plan or points to any degradation of safety as a
result of their use beyond that studied and stated in the Airport Compatibility Report.
Simply because a type of procedure exists or is in use does not by itself change the risk
profile or safety setting of the operation for the surrounding community. As stated in the
Airport Compatibility Report, the Handbook Table 3A guides planners to investigate if
special purpose aircraft have their own procedures for a particular airport, and based upon
the level of usage, there may need to be consideration in the shaping of safety zones. As
stated by Caltrans in their letter and as found in the Airport Compatibility Report, the
very limited use of special purpose aircraft (in 2013 military aircraft accounted for
approximately 1.2 percent of all aircraft operations) fly standard patterns and procedures.
20. Page 5 and 6, Finding 37, Displaced Landing Thresholds:
“Consultant states: Runway 11 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.
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.”
Response 20: First, it is unclear the source of Caltrans operational information stated in
their letter. San Luis Obispo had a total of 68,573 aircraft operations in 2013. Second,
the City is not suggesting that the RPZ should be changed. Instead, it is simply noted in
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 206
17
the Airport Compatibility Report that the RPZs as depicted in the FAA-approved Airport
Layout Plan (ALP) are based upon the displaced thresholds for both runway ends. These
changes to the runway have not been incorporated into the existing ALUP. Moreover, a
review of accident data at SBP shows that accidents have predominantly occurred, where
predicted, within the safety zones shown in the Handbook.
21. Page 6, Paragraph 2: 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 restriction 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.
Response 21: The City’s Airport Compatibility Report provides a complete analysis of
aircraft accidents and incidents at San Luis Obispo Airport and in the airport vicinity
from 1982 to present. The methodology for this review of accidents followed the same
methodology as used for the Handbook Appendix E analysis and criteria. Of the
accidents investigated by the NTSB, none involved fatalities of people on the ground.
The LUCE update and accompanying AOZ reflect Caltrans guidance for appropriate use,
density, and intensity limitations for the limited areas of Safety Zone S1-b, S1-c and S-2
outside of the specific plans areas previously determined to be consistent with the ALUP
by the ALUC.
22. Page 6, Paragraph 3: 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.
Response 22:
The LUCE update has been an involved community process with Council endorsement
and direction informing the process at key decision points. The project description,
which includes the physical land use changes in addition to policy changes to guide
future development, was endorsed for EIR evaluation unanimously by the City Council.
Due to potential conflicts of interest on site-specific land uses outside of the ALUP
boundaries and the need to segment those final decisions once the EIR had been certified,
two Council members recused themselves from voting on the initial decision to provide
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 207
18
notice of intent to overrule. This initial action was passed unanimously by the three
remaining Council members and was required to reserve the City’s right to consider the
LUCE physical and policy changes through a formal action to overrule. This process has
complied with Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) that states, “At least 45 days prior
to the decision to overrule the commission [emphasis added], the local agency governing
body shall provide the commission and the division a copy of the proposed decision and
findings. The commission and the division may provide comments to the local agency
governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings…..The
comments provided by the division or the commission are advisory to the local agency
governing body. The local agency governing body shall include comments from the
commission and the division in the public record of any final decision to overrule the
commission, which may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body.”
The City has complied with the provisions of the Public Utilities Code explicitly by
providing initial findings to Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and the ALUC in
compliance with Section 21676(b) on August 22, 2014 and August 20, 2014 respectively
– 60 days in advance of the City Council hearing to take final action on the LUCE
update. The final action by the City Council will comply with Public Utilities Code
requirements for overrule and with the State Attorney General ruling No. 91-502 which
states, “A two-thirds vote of the entire membership of a city council is not required to
override an adverse determination made by an airport land use commission concerning
the city’s proposed amendment of its general plan; a two-thirds vote of the members
constituting a quorum is sufficient to override the determination.” This latter ruling is
also referenced in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook on page 5-15
under section 5.5.1.
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C
PH2 - 208
19
********End of Response********
ATT 3 - EXHIBIT C PH2 - 209
ATTACHMENT 3-EXHIBIT C
ATTACHMENT A
1
PUBLIC MEMORANDUM REGARDING LUCE OVERRULE PROCESS
To: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo
From: Lori Ballance, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Re: Public Memorandum Regarding Statutory Framework to Overrule ALUC
Decisions
Date: October 10, 2014
I. INTRODUCTION
At staff request, I provide this memo as a summary of the statutory framework governing the
overrule process and how the City’s proposed LUCE Update/AOZ and supporting findings
comply with statutory requirements and acknowledge and address the comments provided by
CalTrans and the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).
As required by statute, the City provided proposed findings to support its potential overrule of
the ALUC’s determination that the City’s LUCE Update and Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) is
inconsistent with the currently adopted Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). In response to those
proposed findings, both CalTrans Division of Aeronautics and the ALUC provided comments,
which the staff has considered and in response to which modifications to the initial LUCE/AOZ
adoption have been proposed.
With respect to inconsistencies between the ALUP and LUCE Update/AOZ policies relating to
land use and density/intensity standards, once an ALUP has been prepared and approved, the
statutory framework recognizes that the local public agency, in this case the City, is the
appropriate body balance multiple priorities, such as open space preservation, housing needs, and
economics, among other factors, in decisions involving general plans and related ordinances. The
state law is clear that local agencies have the ability to undertake land use, cost-benefit and
related analyses and can ultimately overrule ALUP policies if the environmental, policy and/or
economic costs of limiting development as contemplated in an ALUP prove to be too great or if
the public agency finds that there is a greater “public good” in deviating from the ALUP policies
with respect to land use, density and intensity requirements. In order to implement such a policy
decision, the agency must make certain findings in accordance with the Public Utilities Code.
The State Aeronautics Act is set up in a manner that provides a balanced approach to permitting
ALUCs to adopt policies broadly designed to protect and expand airports, while preserving the
discretion of the local agencies to consider and address potential public good, costs and other
factors pertinent to their jurisdictions with respect to implementation of the ALUP policies.
II. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK TO OVERRULE ALUC DECISIONS
The State Aeronautics Act provides for local agencies to overrule ALUC decisions on land use
matters and airport master plans. The overruling process involves four mandatory steps:
PH2 - 210
ATTACHMENT 3-EXHIBIT C
ATTACHMENT A
2
(1) At least 45 days prior to any decision to overrule the ALUC, the City must provide the
ALUC and the Division of Aeronautics a copy of the proposed decision and findings;
(2) The City must hold a public hearing;
(3) The City must make specific findings that the action proposed is consistent with the
purposes of the ALUC statute; and
(4) The City must approve the proposed action by a two-thirds vote of the agency’s governing
body. See, e.g., Public Utilities Code Sections 21675.1(d), 21676, 21676.5(a).
The requirement for the City to make findings in conjunction with a decision to overrule and
ALUC inconsistency finding is included in six separate sections of the ALUC statutes. In each
case, the law provides that the findings must show that the proposed local agency action “is
consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670.” Therefore, in order for the
City to overrule an ALUC decision, the City must document the basis for the overruling action
related directly to the purposes for which the ALUC statutes were adopted. The purpose of the
findings is to assure that the Council has thoughtfully considered its proposed actions in the
context of the purpose of the Aeronautics Act and is acting in compliance with state law.
California law is quite specific with respect to the process by which a local agency may proceed
with an action to overrule an ALUC determination that a proposed plan or project is inconsistent
with an adopted Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Any such action must be accompanied by
specific findings of fact supported by substantial evidence.
Section 21670(a) establishes legislative findings that it is in the best interest of the public to
provide for the orderly development of:
a. “...each public use airport in this state ....”
b. “...the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and
objectives of the California noise standards...” and
c. “...the area surrounding these airports...to prevent the creation of new noise and
safety problems.”
In that context, the statute provides that its purpose is “...to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare by ensuring…”
a. “…the orderly expansion of airport ....”
b. “by ...the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s ex posure to
excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the
extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.”
To ensure compliance with statutory requirements regarding its findings and the factual basis for
those findings the City has relied on data developed via an airport land use compatibility report
from its consultant Nick Johnson of Johnson Aviation. I have reviewed the compatibility report
PH2 - 211
ATTACHMENT 3-EXHIBIT C
ATTACHMENT A
3
and the City’s findings based thereon and conclude that the City’s findings and the analytical
basis on which they rely demonstrate that the LUCE Update would indeed be consistent with the
purposes of the Aeronautics Act.
The City’s Findings Establish That The LUCE Update Provides for Orderly Development of
the Airport
The City’s findings and supporting documents, including, but not limited to the EIR and Nick
Johnson’s Airport Compatibility Report, document the following, consistent with statutory
requirements:
- How the City has considered the long range development plans that exist for the airport.
- How the City plans to support development of the airport over at least the next 20 years.
- How the City’s planning and zoning actions would serve to protect the approaches to the
airport runways.
The City’s Findings Establish That the LUCE Update and the AOZ Minimize Public Exposure
to Noise and Safety Hazards
The law’s purpose is to minimize excessive noise and safety hazards. In order to adopt a finding
demonstrating consistency with this purpose, the City first determined whether the existing noise
exposure or safety hazards are excessive.
- In areas where the existing noise and safety hazards are not excessive, the actions taken
by the City prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems.
- In areas where the existing exposure is excessive, the City’ findings and supporting
documents show how its action in overruling the ALUC determination of inconsistency
nonetheless minimizes additional exposure to those noise and safety concerns that have
been identified.
- The City’s findings and supporting documents also show the extent to which land uses in
the area in question are already incompatible with airport operations, and how the City’s
action to overrule would not create a new incompatible use, or would not expose
additional persons or property to noise and safety hazards associated with existing
compatible uses.
With respect to safety, the City’s findings refer to both the land use and safety elements of the
general plan. The City’s findings and supporting documents:
- Document any inconsistencies between the proposed LUCE Update and safety
compatibility criteria in the ALUC compatibility plan;
- Describe the measures taken to assure that risks – both to people and property on the
ground and to the occupants of aircraft – associated with the City’s land use proposals are
held to a minimum; and
PH2 - 212
ATTACHMENT 3-EXHIBIT C
ATTACHMENT A
4
- Indicate that the proposed land use action falls within a level of acceptable risk
considered to be a community norm.
As it relates to noise, the City’s findings establish the relationship of the LUCE and the AOZ to
California noise standards. The state airport noise standards are set forth in Title 21 of the
California Code of Regulations. These standards are “designed to cause the airport proprietor,
aircraft operator, local governments, pilots and the [Department of Transportation] to work
cooperatively to diminish noise problems.”
In addressing the question of consistency of the proposed LUCE Update with the state noise
standards, the City has, as required, referred specifically to content of the noise element of its
general plan. Section 65302(g) of the Government Code requires community general plans to
include a noise element. This element is required to describe the community noise environment
in terms of both near and long-term noise exposure contours for various noise sources. The
airport is among the noise sources that are considered in the noise element. The City’s findings
and supporting documents:
- Document and resolve any inconsistencies between noise element policies and noise
compatibility criteria in the ALUC compatibility plan; Show how noise element policies
will assure conformance with the state airport noise standards; and
- Identify any measures to be incorporated into local development to mitigate existing and
foreseeable airport noise problems.
In summary, the City’s findings document and explain how the proposed LUCE Update is
consistent with the purposes stated in Section 21670. The City’s findings are divided into four
areas of concern related to land use near the airport: safety, overflight, noise and airspace
protection. The findings demonstrate that noise and safety hazards affecting proposed
development are minimal or have been mitigated. The findings are also supported by substantial
evidence. The findings refer to relevant data, information, and guidelines, including data and
information from sources prepared by Nick Johnson, an aviation professional with expertise in
airport land use planning, information from the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook,
and noise data developed by Johnson Aviation.
III. CALTRANS DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS RESPONSE TO DRAFT FINDINGS AND LEGAL
RECOMMENDATIONS IN RESPONSE TO CALTRANS’ RESPONSE
As indicated above, prior to the City overruling the ALUC inconsistency determination, the City
was required to provide the local ALUC and Division of Aeronautics with a copy of the
proposed decision and findings at least 45 days in advance of any overrule decision and include
any comments from the local ALUC and Division of Aeronautics in the final record of decision.
Pub.Util.Code 21676, 21676.5, 21677. Consistent with this requirement, the City provided draft
findings on its proposed overrule to the ALUC and Division of Aeronautics for review and
comment.
PH2 - 213
ATTACHMENT 3-EXHIBIT C
ATTACHMENT A
5
The City recently received comment letters from both the Division of Aeronautics and the local
ALUC responding to the City’s proposed overrule and draft findings. Although the
inconsistencies between the draft LUCE Update and the ALUP relate to both the designation of
safety compatibility zones as well as the allowance of certain land uses at density/intensity levels
that differ from the ALUP policies, the Division of Aeronautics comment letter focuses primarily
on the inconsistencies relating to the proposed LUCE Update’s designated safety compatibility
zones. City staff and consultants have prepared a point by point response to both the ALUC and
Division’s comment letters; therefore, this memorandum does not provide a response to each
issue identified in these comment letters.
However in light of the Division’s stated concerns regarding the draft findings relating to the
City’s proposed revised safety compatibility zones, and the Division’s clear written support for
the ALUP’s safety compatibility zones, staff has made certain minor revisions to the LUCE
Update (and airport overlay zone,) which acknowledge the ALUP’s existing safety compatibility
zones, without accepting their accuracy, but do not propose to redraw or replace the safety zones
with City drawn boundaries. As a practical matter, the proposed LUCE Update and AOZ largely
mirror and propose to incorporate the land use restrictions in those zones located nearest airport
runways and approaches. In fact, the Division of Aeronautics seemingly endorses the City’s
approach to relying on the noise contours provided in the Airport Master Plan in order to ensure
that the LUCE Update land use compatibility policies for residential uses are consistent with
future plans at the Airport. Thus, staff has proposed a revised approach to LUCE/AOZ
implementation, which would result in only a focused overrule of certain land use restrictions in
three of the existing ALUP safety zones, along with adoption of policies, programs and
regulations to ensure public health and safety, orderly expansion of the airport and its
surrounding areas, and the application of reasonable noise standards and restrictions consistent
with the purposes of the Aeronautics Act where greater land use density/intensity could be
permissible.
IV. EXAMPLES OF OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY OVERRULES
The sole responsibility of ALUCs is to prevent incompatible land use development and thereby
both protect the public from noise and risks and preserve the utility of airports. In contrast, when
making land use decisions, counties and cities have other issues to contend with besides airport
compatibility. Although overruling an ALUC decision of inconsistency requires special steps,
local jurisdictions sometimes will make this effort if they feel it is in their community’s best
interest to do so. In some cases, the overrules may be necessary when the ALUC has not
maintained the integrity of the compatibility planning objectives set forth in the Aeronautics Act.
Some examples of recent overrules include the following:
- July 2014 – City of Newport Beach approved a General Plan land use element
amendment project (citywide) which required an overrule of the Orange County ALUC’s
inconsistency determination.
PH2 - 214
ATTACHMENT 3-EXHIBIT C
ATTACHMENT A
6
- May 2013 – City of Hayward approved an overrule of the Alameda County ALUC with
respect to its 2040 General Plan Update concerning policies relating to infill development
and nonconforming uses.
- 2010 – City of Santa Clara approved a 2010-2035 General Plan Update which required an
overrule of the ALUC’s inconsistency determination with respect to uses and densities in
the General Plan Update.
- 2008 – City of Sacramento approved a 2030 General Plan which required an overrule of
the ALUC’s inconsistency determination in connection with certain areas of the GP.
- 2008 – City of Perris approved a General Plan which required an overrule of the ALUC’s
inconsistency determination.
Generally, it appears that courts are reluctant to strike down public agency overrules if the
findings adequately demonstrate the public agencies method of analyzing facts, regulations and
policies and the rationale for making its overrule decision based on the facts involved and
consistent with the requirements of Section 21670 of the State Aeronautics Act. In summary, as
long as the essential substance of the findings which accompany the public agency overruling of
the ALUC’s inconsistency decision demonstrates that the proposed action is consistent with the
purposes of the statutes as set forth in Section 21670, it appears that courts will uphold public
agency overrules.
V. Conclusion
Essentially then, through the process of developing the proposed LUCE amendments, the City
has determined that factors perhaps not considered by the ALUC when adopting the
compatibility policies must be taken into account, which require different land use and
intensity/density levels than those provided by the ALUP policies. The City has demonstrated
that, in order to meet its local land use requirements and implement its desired policy direction,
deviations from the density/intensity or other requirements of the ALUP policies are required. In
reaching that conclusion, the City has developed a record demonstrating that the deviations from
the ALUP policies can be accomplished while complying with the purposes specified in Section
21670(a) in the State Aeronautics Act, most importantly the protection of public health and
safety. Accordingly, the City’s proposed course of action is legally and analytically sound and
supported by substantial evidence, including evidence of thoughtful consideration of and
response to the comments submitted by CalTrans and the ALUC.
PH2 - 215
Attachment 4
Resolution to adopt LUCE
with compendium of
Council changes
PH2 - 216
RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO APPROVING UPDATES TO THE LAND USE
AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN
INCLUDING ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH
BROAD STREET AREA PLAN, NOISE ELEMENT, SAFETY
ELEMENT, AND CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE
ELEMENTS; AND, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR SPECIAL
FOCUS AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE
PROJECT (GPI/ER 15-12)
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 patterns that discourage urban sprawl and provide for safe, high quality
residential neighborhoods and supportive amenities and services; and
WHEREAS, the City was awarded a Strategic Growth Council Grant and the
work scope authorized by Council and the State Department of Conservation included the
following 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).
Attachment 4
PH2 - 217
Resolution No. XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12
Identifying programs to help migrate to transportation modes other than the
single occupant vehicle.
Identifying healthy food locations and opportunities for pedestrian and bike
access.
WHEREAS, the South Broad Street Area Plan, incorporated as part of the LUCE
update, was endorsed by City Council in Resolution 10460 to be included so that its
impacts could be evaluated in the context of the larger update effort. The development of
the area plan involved approximately 40 public outreach efforts and 27 hearings, in
addition to the LUCE outreach efforts with participation by a focus group of residents,
property owners, and business owners who assisted in developing the plan; 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; 6 community
workshops; 6 open houses; a community survey distributed to every city address; an
interactive on-line virtual town forum called MindMixer; a workshop held at Cal Poly; 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 desires
of the community.
WHEREAS, the community input efforts were supported by outreach in the form
of flyers at Farmers’ Markets; news releases and media outreach to all local print, radio,
and television outlets; utility bill flyers and ads; flyers to local school children; posters on
local buses and at local businesses; display ads in local newspapers; community calendar
postings; banners on the library and across Marsh Street in advance of workshops;
newsletters; Theater public service announcements at all Cinemark downtown movie
screens for a period of 12 weeks; media releases to all area Spanish language outlets; a
dedicated project web site with project materials, agendas, presentations and products;
and over 75 e-mails throughout the process to an interested parties list of over 3,500
members; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on December 12th and 16th, 2013, for the purpose of reviewing
recommendations of the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update
(TF-LUCE) and recommending a set of policy changes for the Land Use and Circulation
Elements (LUCE) to be studied through the environmental review process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the
recommendations of the Planning Commission at public hearings conducted January 14th
and 28th, 2014 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, for the purpose of endorsing a LUCE update project description to be
considered through the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was released on June 13, 2014 with a 45 day
Attachment 4
PH2 - 218
Resolution No. XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12
comment period that closed on July 28, 2014, and the Final EIR was issued on September
3, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, the Final EIR responded to 25 comments from agencies and 6
comments from City advisory bodies and was certified by the City Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo on September 16, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on September 10th, 11th, 17th, & 18th 2014, for the purpose of considering
General Plan Amendments proposed as part of the Land Use and Circulation Element
Update project including General Plan Land Use Element diagram and Zoning map
changes; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of San Luis Obispo, conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California on September 16, 2014; and adopted resolutions certifying the programmatic
EIR, approving the Bishop Knolls and General Hospital Special focus areas, and closing
out the Sustainable Communities Grant; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of San Luis Obispo, conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California on September 30, 2014, and reviewed and provided direction on the draft
Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ), draft Special Focus Overlay Zone, remaining Chapter 8
focus areas and Chapter 11 of the Circulation Element; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of San Luis Obispo, conducted public
hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California on October 7, 2014, and completed review of Land Use Element Chapter 8
Special Focus Areas, and reviewed and provided direction on draft Land Use Element
update Introduction and Chapters 1-6 and 9-12; and, reviewed and provided direction on
Circulation Element introduction and Chapters 1-10 & 12-16; and,
WHEREAS, the LUCE update and associated Airport Overlay Zoning
Regulations have previously been found inconsistent with the ALUP by the Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC), and the City Council has overruled the ALUC in accordance
with requirements of the State Aeronautics Act and is consistent with the purposes of
Article 3.5 as stated in Section 21670; and,
WHEREAS, changes to the Noise, Safety, and Conservation and Open Space
Element are necessary to retain internal consistency and implement an FEIR mitigation;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of San Luis Obispo, conducted public
hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
Attachment 4
PH2 - 219
Resolution No. XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12
California on October 21, 2014, for the purpose of final adoption of the Land Use and
Circulation Element update project (LUCE).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The Land Use and Circulation Element Update project (LUCE) included
extensive efforts at outreach to receive community input and encourage
community involvement, including but not limited to: surveys sent to every
household with 2,198 responses, six public workshops, community wide
promotion, neighborhood open houses, 34 task force meetings, advisory
committee meetings, e-blasts, newsletters, website and social media coverage,
theater public service announcements, Spanish language outreach, newspaper
articles and media interviews.
2. LUCE update policies and programs were strongly informed by community
survey results which showed strong preference for sustainable growth, protection
and expansion of City open space, infill commercial and housing, and
redevelopment of underutilized sites with compatible uses and buildings.
3. LUCE update policies are consistent with the work scope of the Strategic Growth
Council Grant which included the following 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.
Attachment 4
PH2 - 220
Resolution No. XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12
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.
4. The Land Use and Circulation Element Update project’s multi-modal
transportation focus and emphasis on infill growth within the urban reserve line
are consistent with community input, recommendations of the LUCE Task Force,
and advisory body recommendations, received throughout the LUCE update
process including various workshops, surveys, task force meetings, public
hearings, and comments received through public review of the associated
environmental impact report.
5. Amendments to the Land Use Element support development and redevelopment
of sites that will accommodate the community’s future growth.
6. Updates to Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan provide policy
direction to address development areas in the City or in the City’s urban reserve
areas which have special constraints or considerations. Special focus areas in the
community present opportunities to develop customized land use and circulation
approaches or special design implementation to enhance their appearance and
achieve their respective development potential in a manner that is consistent with
community values.
7. Amendments to Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element provide important policy
direction for future planning efforts, especially subsequent specific plan
development for Avila Ranch, San Luis Ranch, and Madonna at Los Osos Valley
Road sites.
8. Amendments to Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element include implementation of
The South Broad Street Area Plan: a plan to help revitalize and beautify a
particular area of the city. The plan also includes rezoning to encourage mixed-
use development and higher density housing. This plan was developed and
reviewed through a separate planning effort involving 27 public hearings and
approximately 40 public outreach efforts.
9. Policies and programs in the Land Use Element support neighborhood wellness
and enhancement, including compatibility policies for new development in
existing neighborhoods.
10. New chapters have been added to the Land Use Element to incorporate policies
and programs related to Healthy Cities and Sustainability.
11. Additional policies and programs have been added to the Land Use Element to
ensure the Downtown remains the cultural core of the community and a safe and
pleasant place to be at all times.
Attachment 4
PH2 - 221
Resolution No. XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12
12. A new chapter has been added to the Circulation Element to reflect multi-modal
circulation policies and programs.
13. Additional policies and programs have been included in the Circulation Element
to focus on traffic reduction, shift in modal priorities, and completion of our local
and regional bicycle network connections.
14. Additional focus on neighborhoods has been incorporated into the Circulation
Element through updates to the policies and programs calling for updates to the
Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines and Parking District programs,
and evaluation of vehicle speeds in residential neighborhoods.
15. The LUCE update will protect public health, safety, and welfare consistent with
the purposes of Article 3.5 as stated in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code.
16. Amendments to the Noise Element, Safety Element, and Conservation and Open
Space Element are required to maintain General Plan Internal Consistency and
incorporate minor policy adjustments as mitigations in the LUCE update project
associated EIR.
SECTION 2. Environmental. The Draft EIR for the Land Use and Circulation
Element Update was released on June 13, 2014 with a 45-day comment period that closed
on July 29, 2014 and the Final EIR was issued on September 3, 2014. For each identified
potentially significant effect under the categories of Agricultural Resources, Cultural
Resources, and Public Services, mitigation measures were included and incorporated into
the LUCE Update project to reduce the identified potentially significant adverse impacts
to less than significant levels. The significant effects identified in the Air Quality, Traffic
and Circulation, and Noise sections of the EIR will not be fully mitigated to a degree of
insignificance with the incorporation of all the identified mitigation measures included in
the EIR. On September 10, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended
Council adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations that the project benefits
warrant project approval despite the identified adverse environmental impacts. On
September 16, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and duly
considered all evidence, including the testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation
and recommendations by the TF-LUCE, Planning Commission, and staff presented at
said hearing, and certified the Final EIR pursuant to the required findings, including a
Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be required unless: (a) Project
changes require major revisions of the EIR; (b) Changed circumstances have occurred
that require major revisions of the EIR; or (c) New information becomes available that
was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified. The
minor LUCE Update policy amendments that have occurred since certification of the
Final EIR do not trigger any of these requirements for supplemental review under CEQA
and in fact most have the effect of reducing project impacts.
Attachment 4
PH2 - 222
Resolution No. XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby adopt the following
updates to the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element s:
(1) Land Use and Circulation Element updates as shown in Volume 2, Appendices A-C,
including the South Broad Street Area Plan, dated June 2013 and incorporated by
reference; (2) Compendium of changes to the documents listed above and endorsed by
the City Council, attached hereto, and also including updates to the Noise, Safety, and
Conservation and Open Space Elements to maintain General Plan Internal Consistency
and incorporate minor policy adjustments as mitigations in the LUCE update project
associated EIR, as described and shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and (3) Land Use
Element map amendments as described and shown in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 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. The recitals
contained in this resolution are incorporated by reference.
Upon motion of Councilmember ______, seconded by Councilmember
_______, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 21st day of October, 2014.
Mayor Jan Marx
Attest:
_______________________
Anthony J. Mejia, CMC
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
_______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Attachment 4
PH2 - 223
Land Use Element
Introduction
Pages 6-7
The City's planning area coincides with the County's San Luis Obispo planning area (Figure 1), and
encompasses about 72,600 acres. It can be generally described to include most of Montana de Oro
State Park, as well as Cuesta College, Camp San Luis Obispo, and the California Men’s Colony. It is
bounded by the coastal zone to the west and the Los Padres National Forest to the east. The southern
portion of the planning area includes the Irish Hills, See Canyon and Squire Canyon. It contains the rural
areas surrounding the City of San Luis Obispo, the inland portion of the Avila Beach urban area and the
village of Los Ranchos/Edna. as extending to the ridge of the Santa Lucias (Cuesta Ridge) on the north
and east; the southerly end of the Edna Valley (northern Arroyo Grande Creek watershed boundary) on
the southeast; the ridge of the Davenport Hills on the southwest; and the ridge of the Irish Hills, Turri
Road in the Los Osos Valley, and Cuesta College in the Chorro Valley on the west. The General Plan also
defines a smaller geographic boundary, referred to as the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
Sphere of Influence (SOI) Planning Subarea which contains the urban land uses for the community
(Figure 2).
Figure 1:
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 224
Pages 10-11 of Draft LUE
Background to the 1994 Land Use Element (Keep and italicize)
Pages 11 of Draft LUE
Background to the 2014 Land Use Element
Since adopting the Land Use and Circulation Elements in 1994, the City has updated and amended its
General Plan elements multiple times. The City updated its Noise Element in 1996, its Safety Element in
2000 and 2012, its Parks and Recreation Element in 2001, its Conservation and Open Space Element in
2006, and its Housing Element in 2004 and 2010, and its Water and Wastewater Element in 2010. While
the City made minor amendments to its Land Use and Circulation Elements in 2010 and 2005,
respectively, the 2014 LUCE update is the most comprehensive update of these elements since 1994.
The City initiated the LUCE Update in early 2012 with the support of a Sustainable Communities Planning
Grant from the California Strategic Growth Council. The primary objectives of the Update were to
respond to any changed conditions in San Luis Obispo, incorporate sustainable practices and policies,
respond to new State planning requirements including climate change, and engage the community in a
reaffirmation of the community’s vision and goals for the city’s future. The LUCE Update featured a
community engagement program, which included a resident LUCE Task Force from diverse geographic
areas of the City; a city-wide community survey; a series of six community workshops; open houses; on-
line forums; and numerous other outreach efforts.
Page 21 of Draft LUE – midway on page
Land Use Designations within LUCE Planning Sub-area
Within the LUCE Planning Sub-area, tThe General Plan Land Use Diagram includes residential,
commercial, industrial, and other land use designations that depict the types of land uses that will be
allowed within the LUCE Planning Sub-area. Table 1 identifiesdescribes all of the designations along
with their corresponding development intensity standards, as follows:.
Tables 1 and 2 provide same information:
Page 28 of Draft LUE – top of page
Land Use Designations Outside the LUCE Planning Sub-area
Most of the land within the City’s Greenbelt (see Figure 5 in the Conservation and Open space Element),
but outside the City limits (unincorporated lands), is designated by the County for Agriculture or Open
Space. The City supports these land use designations and discourages any further subdivision of existing
parcels unless such subdivision is expressly part of strategy to permanently preserve agriculture and/or
open space. However, if any new lots are permitted apart from such a strategy, they should be a
minimum of 20 acres in size or greater.
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 225
Chapter 1 Growth Management
Added Policy - Page 36 of Draft LUE (under 1.12.1)
NEW: Recycled Water
Provision of recycled water outside of City limits may only be considered in compliance with Water and
Wastewater Element Policy A 7.3.4 and the following findings:
a) Non-potable/recycled water is necessary to support continued agricultural operations.
b) Provision of non-potable/recycled water will not be used to increase development potential of
property being served.
c) Non-potable/recycled water will not be further treated to make it potable.
d) Prior to provision of non-potable/recycled water, the property to be served will record a
conservation, open space, Williamson Act, or other easement instrument to maintain the area
being served in agriculture and open space while recycled water is being provided.
1.15.4 Project Review
The City will continue to participate with the County in help establish a procedure for all
jurisdictions in the County to formally reviewing and providing input on County local projects
and general-plan amendments that have the potential to could have countywide impact the
cCity or be inconsistent with City policies. Significant issues will be referred to the Planning
Commission and/or City Council.
Chapter 2 Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods
Page 43 of Draft LUE
2.2.9 Compatible Development
The City shall require that new Hhousing built within an existing neighborhood should be in be sited and
designed to be compatible with the scale and in character with that of the neighborhood. All
multifamily development and large group-living facilities should shall be compatible with any nearby,
lower density development. Compatibility for all development shall be evaluated using the following
criteria:
A. Architectural Character
New Buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to neighborhood historical or
architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety.
A. Front Setback Patterns
New development shall match the typical range of setbacks used in areas adjacent to the
project.
B. Landscaping
New development shall repeat or enhance the landscaping provided in parkway areas (if any
exist) along street frontages.
C. Rhythm of Development
New development shall reflect the rhythm of existing development in the area including
features such as setbacks and façade widths along the front setback. Larger structures, such
as multi-family (as allowed by the General Plan land use designation for the site) should
replicate the spacing of structural components along the street frontage.
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 226
D. Street Orientation
New development shall match the general orientation of existing residential structures in
the adjacent area and shall provide an inviting façade facing public streets.
E. Architecture
Architectural compatibility will be assessed based on a combination of factors, including
height, scale, mass, form and architectural style. Desired outcome is a smooth transition
between existing and proposed development, supporting a quality neighborhood.
F. Privacy and Solar Access
New buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor
areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of
adjacent dwellings. (See also the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element.)
G. Preservation of Natural, Historic and Cultural Features
New development shall:
a. Respect historic context
b. Maintain mature trees on-site to the maximum extent feasible
c. Protect stream corridors and natural drainages
H. Housing Diversity
A mix of housing types, and a range of density within a neighborhood an area is generally
desirable (see also Policy 2.1.6).
I. Parking
New development:
a. Outside of the Downtown In-lieu Parking Fee Area, new development will be required to
provide adequate off-street parking to match the intended use.
b. For multi-family, parking shall be sited and designed to minimize the visual impact from
the public street.
Page 46 of Draft LUE
2.3.1 Density Categories
The following residential density categories are established in (Table 41) within LUCE Planning Sub-area,
and Table 2 for areas outside the LUCE Planning Sub-area but within the City’s Planning Area. For
planning studies conducted, Table 5 provides a typical population density for each residential land use
designation. Residential density is expressed as the number of dwellings per acre of net site area within
the designation. In determining net area, the following types of areas are excluded: sensitive features
such as creeks, habitats of rare or endangered plants and animals, and significant trees; land dedicated
in fee to the public for streets or neighborhood parks.
For the categories other than Rural Agriculture/Open Space, Residential Rural, Residential
Suburban, and Low-Density Residential, densities are expressed in terms of a standard two-
bedroom dwelling. This approach is intended to achieve population densities approximately like
those indicated. More or fewer dwellings having different bedroom counts may be built
depending on the number of people expected to live in a project, as indicated by the number of
bedrooms. The population-density standards assumptions also apply to group residential
facilities. (For allowed residential development in Office, commercial, and manufacturing
districts non-residential designations, see the sections concerning those districts Table 1.)
Page 51 of Draft LUE
2.12 Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans (restore words in title previously deleted)
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 227
Chapter 3 Commercial and Industrial Development
Page 63 of Draft LUE
3.5.7.8 Tourism
The City willshall:
A. Encourage sufficient development of additional conference and meeting space to
accommodate the demand for medium size conferences;
B. Work with the Performing Arts Center City’s art community in promoting arts
oriented tourism;
C. Develop aggressive tourism marketing programs that highlight the City as a visitor
destination;
C. Develop concepts such as rail tours, sea cruises, historical tours, and bicycle tours;
D. Encourage development of appropriate recreational facilities for bicycles, golf,
tennis, equestrian activities, soccer, swimming, fishing, and eco-tourism.
3.5.7.12 Business Retention and Expansion
The City shall implement the Economic Development Strategic Plan and other appropriate
strategies for business retention and expansion with a focus on those providing head-of-
household jobs.
Chapter 4 Downtown
Page 67 of Draft LUE
New Policy
The City shall increase Downtown green space and public parks, including pocket parks and parklets, as
the number of people living Downtown increases.
Chapter 5 Public and Cultural Facilities
Page 77 of LUE
5.2.6 Performing Arts Center
The City, Cal Poly, and the Performing Arts Foundation for the Performing Arts will jointly
develop a large manage the performing arts theatercenter on the Cal Poly campus.
Chapter 6 Resource Protection
Page 88 of LUE
6.4.5 Porous Paving Runoff Reduction and Groundwater Recharge
The City encourages shall encourage require the use of porous paving methods to facilitate
rainwater percolation for . Parking lots and paved roof areas and outdoor hardscaped areas
storage areas shall, where practical, use one or more of the following measures to reduce
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 228
surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge.: porous paving; ample landscaped areas
which receive surface drainage and which are maintained to facilitate percolation; drainage
detention basins with soils that facilitate percolation.
Page 91 of LUE
6.4.6 Development Requirements
The City shall encourage require project designs that minimize drainage concentrations and
impervious coverage. and avoid fFloodplain areas should be avoided and, where feasible, any
channelization shall be designed to provide the appearance of a natural water course.
Chapter 7 Airport
Page 92 of Draft LUE – Revised introduction
Policies in this section apply to the area within the City limits covered by the San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport Land Use Plan Area, as shown on Figure 9, and represent the Airport Influence Area
subject to airport safety, noise, height, and overflight standards.
Page 92 of Draft LUE
7.3.3 Airport Land Use Plan
Land use density and intensity shall carefully balance noise impacts and the progression in the degree of
reduced safety risk further away from the runways, consistent with using guidance from the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan, State Aeronautics Act, and California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook guidelines. The City shall use the Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity as
a reasonably foreseeable projection of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for long-term land use
planning purposes. Development should be permitted only if it is consistent with the San Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Plan. Prospective buyers of property which is subject to airport influence
should be so informed.
Page 92 of Draft LUE
7.? Airport Safety Zones
Density and allowed uses within the Airport Safety Zones shall be consistent with the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport Land Use Plan unless the City overrides a determination of inconsistency in
accordance with Section 21676 and 21676.5 et. seq. of the Public Utilities Code. If the City overrides a
determination, all land uses shall be consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and guidance provided in
the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines, City policies and noise standards as and
substantiated by the San Luis Obispo County Airport Master Plan activity forecasts as used for noise
planning purposes.
Added Policy
7.? Airspace Protection
The City shall use the Airport Master Plan Update and FAA airport design standards and Part 77 surfaces
to keep the airspace surrounding the airport free of objects where required by the FAA or shall limit the
height of objects as required by the FAA.
The City shall also ensure obstruction clearance is provided for all en route and terminal (airport)
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 229
instrument procedures as per the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) to
avert modifications to any planned or published instrument approach or instrument departure
procedures at SBP.
Page 95 of Draft LUE
7.3.6 Internal Open Space
The City shall ensure The areas designated for urban uses in the Airport Area Specific Plan, but not
necessarily each parcel, should include open areas as site amenities and to protect resources, consistent
with the Conservation and Open Space Element. In addition, the City shall ensure wildlife corridors
across the Airport Area shall be identified and preserved.
Page 96 of Draft LUE
7.? 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 San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan and the City’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
Specific Plans shall be amended accordingly.
Page 96 of Draft LUE
7.3.12 Airport Overlay Zone
The City shall create an Airport Overlay Zone category to reflect the boundaries of the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport Land Use Plan within the City limits. The purpose of the Airport Overlay Zone is
to codify airport compatibility criteria identified in areas for which the City may override the Airport
Land Use Commission determination the general plan for those areas located within the Airport
Influence Area consistent to ensure compliance with the requirements of the California State
Aeronautics Act (Cal.Pub. Utilities Code, Section 21670, et. seq.) which establishes statewide
requirements for airport land use compatibility planning, guidance from 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 requirements, and other related federal
and state requirements relating to airport land use compatibility planning. Implementation of the
compatibility policies will be accomplished through the Airport Land Use and Zoning Code.
Page 96 of Draft LUE
7.3.13 Airport Land Use and Zoning Code
The City shall update its Zoning Regulations to address allowable uses and development standards for
areas in which the City may override a determination of inconsistency. Zoning regulations shall be
located within the Airport Influence Area consistent with the requirements of the State Aeronautics Act,
use guidance from the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and comply with related state and
federal requirements relating to airport land use compatibility. These development standards will
include, but not limited to, intensity and density limitations, identification of prohibited uses, infill
development, height limitations, obstructions, and other hazards to flight, noise insulation
requirements, buyer awareness measures, nonconforming uses and reconstruction and the process for
airport compatibility criteria reviews by the City consistent these development standards.
New Program:
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 230
Review of Local General Plan and implementing Development Standards
Unless previously referred and acted upon by the City, review of General and Specific Plans and
Amendments, Zoning ordinance or amendments, or Building code changes within the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport Land Use Plan boundary (Figure 9) shall include referral to the Airport Land Use
Commission as specified in Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code for a determination of
consistency with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan.
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 231
Chapter 8 Special Focus Areas
Introduction
(Last paragraph on page 97)
The special planning areas Special Focus Areas are those that present opportunities to develop
customized land use approaches or special design implementation to enhance their appearance and
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 232
achieve their respective development potential: Foothill Blvd/Santa Rosa., Bishop Knoll, Alrita area,
Upper Monterey, Mid-Higuera, Caltrans site, General Hospital site, Broad Street Area, Madonna Inn
area, Sunset Drive-in/ Prado, Pacific Beach, Calle Joaquin auto sales area, LOVR Creek area, CalFire/Cal
Poly property, and Broad Street at Tank Farm area.
Pages 105, 106, and 107
Planning Commission recommended a footnote for the performance standards of all three Specific
Plans:
*There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or
environmental constraints.
Page 105 of Draft LUE
8.3.2.4 SP-2 San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area
Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance
standards.
Type
Designations
Allowed % of Site Minimum* Maximum
Residential LDR
MDR
MHDR
HDR
350 units 500 units
Commercial NC
CC
50,000 SF 200,000 SF
Office/High
tech)
O 50,000 SF 150,000 SF
Hotel/Visitor-
serving
200 rooms
Parks PARK 5.8 ac
Open Space /
Agriculture
OS
AG
Minimum
50%1
65.5 ac
Minimum
50%1
No maximum
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
*There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or
environmental constraints.
1 The City Council may consider allowing a portion of required open space to be met through off-site
dedication provided:
a) A substantial multiplier for the amount of open space is provided for the off-site property
exchanged to meet the on-site requirement; and
b) Off-site land is of similar agricultural and visual value to the community; and
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 233
c) Off-site land is protected through an easement, dedication or fee title in perpetuity for
agriculture/open space.
Page 107 of Draft LUE
8.3.2.6 SP-4 Avila Ranch Specific Plan Area
Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance
standards.
Type
Designations
Allowed % of Site Minimum Maximum
Residential LDR
MDR
MHDR
HDR
500 700
Commercial NC 15,000 SF 25,000 SF
Open Space /
Agriculture
OS
AG
50%1
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
1 Up to 1/3 of the open space may be provided off-site or through in-lieu fees consistent with the Airport
Area Specific Plan. Required Open Space may be reduced up to 30% of the site proportionally to the
amount of affordable housing provided on-site in a ratio consistent with the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation beyond inclusionary housing requirements.
Page 108 of Draft LUE
8.3.3.1 Foothill Boulevard / Santa Rosa Area
This area, which includes land on both sides of Foothill Boulevard between Chorro and Santa
Rosa, is currently developed as commercial centers that include highway and neighborhood
serving commercial uses. At the affected property owners’ request, the boundary of this area
on the north side of Foothill may be extended to include one or more of the existing commercial
properties west of Chorro Street. The City shall work with property owners / developers to
redevelop the area as mixed use (either horizontal or vertical mixed use) to include a mix of
uses as described under the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial and Medium
High to High Density Residential designations.
The non-residential component of the project should include elements that serve the nearby
neighborhoods. Examples include:
• specialty stores and services
• food service
• entertainment, and
• recreational facilities (except that movie theaters, nightclubs, bars/taverns and
restaurants serving alcohol after 11 pm shall be prohibited).
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 234
As part of this project, the City will evaluate adjustments to parking requirements to account for
predominant pedestrian and bike access. Building height adjustments in this area can also be
considered with mixed use development. Redevelopment plans shall include consideration of
improving the existing complex intersections of Foothill/Chorro/Broad, the desirability of
modifying Boysen at and through the property on the northeast corner of the area, and
enhancement of pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections across Foothill and Santa
Rosa/Highway 1 and to the campus. Among other possible incentives, building height
adjustments on the North side of Foothill may be considered with mixed use development.
The Fire Station will be maintained or relocated within the area.
Page 109 of Draft LUE
8.3.3.2 Upper Monterey
f. The City will work with local hotels and Cal Poly to develop enhanced meeting rooms and
conference facilities. These types of facilities would not be located on the east side of
Monterey north of California Street, nor is a stand-alone conference center is appropriate
for this area.
Page 110 of Draft LUE
8.3.3.8 Sunset Drive-in Theater/Prado Road Area
This 2538-acre area should be further developed only if flooding can be mitigated without
significant harm to San Luis Obispo Creek. Until flood hazards are mitigated, continued
agricultural use and low-intensity recreational use are appropriate. Any use drawing substantial
regional traffic also depends on providing a full interchange needed infrastructure at Prado
Road, and extending Prado Road to connect with Madonna Road, and realignment of Elks Lane.
Page 111 of Draft LUE
8.3.3.12 Broad Street at Tank Farm Road Site
Located at the northwest corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road, this approximate 10 acre
site will be used as a mixed use site, providing for a mix of uses as described under the
Community Commercial and Office designations and residential limited to upper floors. The site
will provide a strong commercial presence at the intersection. Areas along the creek on the
western edge of the site will be appropriately buffered to provide creek protections. Attention
to connectivity, safety and comfort of bicycle and pedestrian circulation will be especially
important in the development of this corner.
8.3.3.13 CalFire /Cal Poly-owned property on Highway 1
The Cal Poly Master Plan currently designates this area for Faculty and Staff housing. The City
shall collaborate with Cal Poly in updating the Master Plan for development of campus property.
Master Plan direction for this property shall address sensitive visual and habitat resources,
circulation issues, impacts to City services, transition and potential impacts to surrounding
neighborhoods.
Chapter 9 Sustainability
Global change to add sustainability icon to all policies and programs in this chapter.
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 235
Page 114-115 of Draft LUE
9.3.7 Sustainable Design
The City shall promote and, where appropriate, require sustainable building practices that
consume less energy, water and other resources, facilitate natural ventilation, use daylight
effectively, and are healthy, safe, comfortable, and durable. Projects shall include, unless
deemed infeasible by the City, the following sustainable design features.
A. Energy-Efficient Structure
Utilize building standards and materials that achieve or surpass best practices for energy
efficiency.
B. Energy-Efficient Appliances
Utilize appliances, including air conditioning and heating systems that achieve high
energy efficiency. Incorporation of alternative energy systems (e.g. passive and/or
active solar, heat pumps) is encouraged.
C. Natural Ventilation
Optimize potential for cooling through natural ventilation.
B.D. Plumbing
Utilize plumbing fixtures that conserve or reuse water such as low flow faucets or grey
water systems and implement a builder incentive program that will encourage new
homes to be built with onsite water/heat recycling systems to help achieve the goal of
net zero water and energy use.
E. Efficient Landscaping
Include landscaping that reduces water use through use of drought-tolerant / native
plant species, high-efficiency irrigation (drip irrigation), and reduction or elimination of
the use of turf. Collection and use of site runoff and rainwater harvesting in landscape
irrigation is encouraged.
F. Solar Orientation
Optimize solar orientation of structures to the extent possible.
C.G. Privacy and Solar Access
New buildings outside of the downtown will respect the privacy and solar access of
neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or
additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings.
D.H. Solar Ready
The City shall encourage new development to be built “solar ready” so that owners may
easily install solar infrastructure, as appropriate.
E.I. Solar Canopies
The City shall encourage the inclusion of solar canopies that include solar panels (such
as structures over parking lots) on new construction, as appropriate.
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 236
Page 115 of Draft LUE
New Policy: Renew the Urban Forest
The City shall Ddevelop a long term tree planting program to beautify the city, mitigate
increased residential density, address die-off, and combat air pollution and global warming.
New Program: Urban Forest
The City shall Uupdate master tree plan and develop recommendations to renew and
maintain the urban forest and plant more trees.
Program Building Code Update
The City shall regularly review and update its building codes and ordinances to identify
revisions that promote energy efficient building design and construction practices, for
example by including requirements for electric vehicle charging stations for new residential
developments.
Program Incentive Program
The City shall consider the feasibility of providing incentives for new and renovated projects
that incorporate sustainable design features such as constructing new buildings that are
solar ready, or off-setting significant operational energy use through use of solar water
heating, photovoltaic systems, geothermal or wind energy systems.
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 237
Circulation Element
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 8 of Draft CE
1.5.1 Transportation Goals
1. Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing
dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goal of achieving State and Federal
health standards for air quality.
2. Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking,
riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools.
3. Provide a system of streets that are well-maintained and safe for all forms of transportation.
4. Widen and extend streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects will
cause no significant, long-term environmental problems.
5. Make the downtown more functional and enjoyable for pedestrians.
6. Promote the safe operation of all modes of transportation.
7. Coordinate the planning of transportation with other affected agencies such as San Luis Obispo
County, Cal Trans, and Cal Poly.
8. Reduce the need for travel by private vehicle through land use strategies, telecommuting,
creative transportation demand management, and compact work weeks.
9. Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all
circulation modes.
1.7 Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within existing
developed parts of the city by 20002035, and extend the system to serve new growth areas.
2. Complete improvements to the city's transit system serving existing developed areas by
20002035, and provide service to new growth areas.
3. Support the efforts of the County Air Pollution Control District to implement traffic reduction
programs.
4. Support and develop education programs directed at promoting types of transportation other
than the single-occupant vehicle.
Page 9 of Draft CE
1.9 Support Environmentally Sound Technological Advancement
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Promote the use of quiet, fuel-efficient vehicles that produce minimum amounts of air pollution.
A. The City will continue to support the use and development of compressed natural gas and
biodiesel fueling stations, EV recharging stations, and other alternative fuel stations in the
San Luis Obispo area.
Chapter 2 Traffic Reduction
Page 12 of Draft CE
2.1.4 Incentives for Educational Institutions
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 238
The City shall continue to work with Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and other educational institutions to
provide incentives to all students, faculty and staff to use alternative forms of transportation.
Chapter 3 Transit Service
Page 13 of Draft CE
3.0.1 Transit Development
The City shouldshall encourage transit accessibility, development, expansion, coordination and
aggressive marketing throughout San Luis Obispo County to serve a broader range of local and regional
transportation needs including commuter service.
3.0.3 Paratransit Service
ParatransitThe City shall continue to support paratransit service for the elderly and handicapped should
continue to bedisabled persons provided seniors and persons with disabilities by public, and private, and
volunteer organizationstransportation providers.
3.0.4 Campus Service
The City shouldshall continue to work with Cal Poly to maintain and expand the "nofree fare subsidy
program" for campus service and Cal Poly should continue to provide financial support.affiliates. The
City shouldshall work with Cuesta College and other agenciesschools to establish similar programs.
Page 14 of Draft CE
3.1.4 Transit Service Evaluation
The City will cooperateshall coordinate with efforts of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOGRegional Transit Authority (SLORTA) to evaluate the cost effectiveness of centralizing
transitbenefits and drawbacks of consolidated service.
New Program
The City shall update its Short Range Transit Plan to evaluate adding mass transit stops at the high
school and the middle school.
3.1.7 New Development
When evaluating transportation impacts, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service analysis.
Chapter 4 Bicycle Transportation
Page 16 of Draft CE
4.1.1 Incentives
The City shall work with Cal Poly and, Cuesta College shall be encouragedand other educational
institutions to provide incentives to and educate all students, faculty and staff to use alternative
bicycling as a forms of transportation.
New Program
The City shall evaluate a bike share program in coordination with Cal Poly and other educational
institutions.
Page 17 of Draft CE
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 239
4.1.9 Bicycle Licensing
The City should consider expanding and maintaining its bicycle licensing program to address bicycle loss,
theft, and safety problems.
Chapter 5 Walking
Page 18 of Draft CE
5.0.3 New Development
New development shall provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths consistent with City policies, plans,
programs and standards. When evaluating transportation impact, the City shall use a Multimodal Level
of Service analysis.
Chapter 6 Multi-Modal Circulation
Page 21 of Draft CE
6.0.5 Mitigation
c. Transit: For transit-related impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of
any infrastructural improvements required. This may involve provision of street furniture at
transit stops, transit shelters, and/or transit shelter amenities, pullouts for transit vehicles,
transit signal prioritization, provision of additional transit vehicles, or exclusive transit lanes.
Chapter 7 Traffic Management
Page 23 of Draft CE
7.0.2 Street Network
The City shall manage to the extent feasible the street network so that the standards presented in Table
2 are not exceeded. This will require new development to mitigate the traffic impacts it causes or the
City to limit development that affects streets where congestion levels may be exceeded. The standards
may be met by strengthening alternative modes over the single occupant motor vehicle. Where feasible,
roundabouts shall be the City’s preferred intersection control alternative due to the vehicle speed
reduction, safety, and operational benefits of roundabouts.
Page 24 of Draft CE
7.1.7 Traffic Access Management
The City shall adopt an access management policy to control location, spacing, design and operation of
driveways, median openings, crosswalks, interchanges and street connections to a particular roadway
including navigation routes to direct traffic in a manner that preserves the safety and efficiency of the
transportation system. Navigation routing and other smart access technologies should be considered as
part of the update to the Access and Parking Management plan.
7.1.9 Transportation Funding
The City shall develop and adopt guidelines that implement Policy 7.0.4 prior to concurrent with the
2015-17 Financial Plan. In meeting the “approximately proportional” goal of the policy, the guidelines
may take into consideration such factors as the need for multi-year planning and budgeting, the
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 240
recognition that projects may benefit multiple modes, that non-city funding sources may be used to
meet or exceed the objectives for particular modes, that some extraordinary capital projects (e.g. major
interchange improvements) may be identified as special cases, that emergencies or threat to public
health or safety may require special treatment, and that certain enterprise and special funds may be
restricted to use for specific modes.
Chapter 8 Neighborhood Traffic Management
Page 30 of Draft CE
8.0.5 Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines
The City shall update its Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines to address voting, funding, and
implementation procedures and develop an outreach program on the availability of the program.
Page 31 of Draft CE
8.1.3 Quality of Life
When requested by neighborhoods, The City shall analyze residential streets shall be analyzed for their
livability with regards to multi-modal traffic noise, volumes,and speed, and safety as well as the amount
of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and potential excess right-of-way pavement. Traffic calming or other
intervening measures. may be necessary to maintain the resident's quality of life. The City should give
priority to existing streets that exceed thresholds.
8.1.4 City Vehicle Operation
OperatorsThe City shall direct operators of City vehicles, excluding police patrols, should not to use
Residential Collector or Residential Local streets as shortcut routes for non-emergency City business.
Chapter 9 Street Network Changes
Page 36 of Draft CE
TABLE 5: TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
Project Description Agencies Potential
Funding
Extensions
1
Prado Road
Extension West
Extend and widen Prado Rd. as an Arterial
street with 2 lanes in each direction, a center
turn lane/landscaped median, Class II bike
lanes, sidewalks and Class I bike lanes (where
feasible) from US 101 to Madonna.
City/Caltrans/Co
unty
-Developer Const.
-Dev. Impact Fees
-Grant Funding
2
Prado Road
Extension East
Widen and extend Prado Rd. as an
Highway/Regional Route Arterial with 2 lanes
in each direction, a center turn
lane/landscaped median, Class II bike lanes,
sidewalks and Class I bike lanes (where
feasible) from US 101 to Broad Street. ROW
Limitations east of Higuera outside of the
MASP area may limit the City’s ability to
install Class I facilities. (See MASP)
City/Caltrans -Developer Const.
-Dev. Impact Fees
-Grant Funding
3 Buckley Road Extend Buckley Road as an Arterial street City/County -Developer Const.
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 241
Extension from Vachell Lane to Higuera Street. (See
AASP)
4
Bullock Lane
Extension
Widen and extend a residential collector to
connect Orcutt Road with Tank Farm Road.
(See OASP)
City -Developer Const.
-Dev. Impact Fees
5
Santa Fe Road
Extension
Realign and Extend Santa Fe Road as a
Commercial Collector from Hoover Avenue
to Prado Road including construction of a new
bridge at Acacia Creek and round-a-bout at
Tank Farm Road. (See AASP)
City/County -Developer Const.
-Dev. Impact Fees
-Grant Funding
6
Bishop Street
Extension
Extend Bishop Street west over R.R. tracks.
The City shall conduct a detailed subarea
traffic analysis to determine if secondary
measures can be made to allow for elimination
of the Bishop Street Extension and protection
of neighborhood traffic levels. And
recommend improvements, if any.
City -Dev. Impact Fees
-Grant Funding
-General Fund
7
Mission Plaza
Expansion
Expand Mission Plaza to East to Monterey
and Nipomo and Broad Street from Higuera to
Palm St. Some areas of the expansion will
have vehicle permitted pedestrian zones to
maintain access to adjacent properties.
City -Grant Funding
-General Fund
8
Victoria Ave.
Extension
Extend Victoria Ave. from Woodbridge to
High Street.
City -Developer Const.
-Dev. Impact Fees
-Grant Funding
-General Fund
Widenings
9
Mid Higuera
(Marsh to High
Street)
Acquire property and widen to allow four
travel lanes, center turn lane, bike lanes, etc.
& implement Downtown Plan concepts (See
Mid-Higuera Plan)
City -Dev. Impact Fees
-Grant Funding
-General Fund
10
Orcutt Road Widen Orcutt Road as an Arterial Street with
2 lanes in each direction, a center turn
lane/landscaped median, Class II bike lanes
and sidewalks from UPRR to Johnson (See
OASP)
City -Dev. Impact Fees
-Grant Funding
-General Fund
11
Tank Farm Road Widen Tank Farm Road as a Parkway Arterial
with 2 lanes in each direction, a center turn
lane/landscaped median, Class II bike lanes,
sidewalks and Class I bike lanes (where
feasible) from Higuera to Broad. (See AASP)
City/County -Developer Const.
-Dev. Impact Fees
12
South Higuera Widen Higuera to 4 lanes, with a center turn
lane, Class II bikeways from Madonna to
southern City Limits
City/CalTrans -Grant Funding
-General Fund
New Connections
13
Hwy 1 (Santa
Rosa)
Construct a non-vehicle grade separated
crossing at Boysen and Hwy 1 (Santa Rosa).
City/CalTrans/
CalPoly
-Regional Funds
-Grant Funding
-General Fund
14
Tank Farm to
Buckley Collector
Construct a new North / South collector
between Tank Farm Road & Buckley Road in
the vicinity of Horizon Lane.
City/County -Developer Const.
-Dev. Impact Fees
15
LOVR Bypass As part of LOVR Creekside Special Planning
Area, the project shall analyze impacts of a
new roadway connection in some form from
Los Osos Valley Road to Higuera; and/or
City -Developer Const.
-Dev. Impact Fees
-Grant Funding
-General Fund
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 242
The City shall Conduct a detailed subarea
traffic analysis to determine final feasibility of
connecting a roadway from US 101 to
Higuera Street. Issues to be studied should
include, but are not limited to impacts to:
sensitive noise receptors, agriculture
operations, open space, creek, traffic and
biological resources.
16
Froom Ranch
Road
Construct a new collector between
Prado/Dalido Rd. and Los Osos Valley Road.
City/County -Developer Const.
-Dev. Impact Fees
-Grant Funding
Interchange Upgrades
17
Highway 1 (Santa
Rosa) & US 101
Interchange
Upgrade
Construct some form of interchange upgrade
consolidating ramps. (See Hwy 1 MIS report)
City/CalTrans -Regional Funds
-Dev. Impact Fees
-Grant Funding
-General Fund
18
Broad St. & US
101 Interchange
Closure
Close NB & SB Broad street ramps at
Highway 101. Highway 1 & 101 project is a
prerequisite until otherwise addressed.
City/Caltrans -Regional Funds
-Dev. Impact Fees
-Grant Funding
-General Fund
19
Prado Road & US
101 Interchange
Build full interchange at 101. Development of
San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Area shall include a
circulation analysis of alternatives to a full
access interchange, an analysis of compact
interchange designs that minimize open space
/ ag. land impacts, and an analysis of potential
incremental phasing of the interchange
elements.
City/Caltrans/
County
-Regional Funds
-Developer Const.
-Dev. Impact Fees
-Grant Funding
Reconfigurations
20
Monterey Street
Right of Way
Preserve right-of-way on Monterey Street
from Santa Rosa to Grand for the purposes of
expanding to four travel lanes and/or bicycle
& pedestrian facilities
City -Developer
Cooperation
-General Fund
21
Prefumo Canyon
Rd. Median
Install landscaped median on Prefumo Canyon
Road between Los Osos Valley Road and
Hedley Dr.
City -Grant Funding
-General Fund
22 Garden Street
Makeover
Reconfigure Garden Street to a one-way street
with pedestrian enhancements.
City -Developer Const.
23 Marsh & Higuera
2-Way Conversion
Convert Marsh & Higuera Streets between
Santa Rosa & Johnson to 2-way flow.
City -Grant Funding
-General Fund
24
Chorro, Broad, &
Boysen
Realignments
Redevelopment of University Square shall
incorporate a detailed circulation, safety &
access management analysis for the
intersections of Boysen & Santa Rosa
(Potential Grade Separated Crossing /
Restriction) Foothill & Chorro, and Foothill &
Broad as well as driveway access points along
adjacent roadways. And recommend
improvements if any.
City -Developer Const.
-General Fund
25
Madonna/
Higuera
Realignment
As part of redevelopment of the properties
north or south of Madonna Road west of
Higuera, or as part of update to the Mid
Higuera Plan, analyze potential relocation of
Madonna Road at Higuera Street.
City -Developer Const.
-General Fund
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 243
26
Pismo/Higuera/
High Street
Redevelopment of properties at the
intersection of High & Pismo at Higuera shall
incorporate a detailed traffic analysis and
evaluation of intersection realignment. And
recommend improvements, if any.
City -Developer Const.
-General Fund
27
Various
Intersection
Upgrades
Grand & Slack, California & Taft, Grand &
US 101 SB, San Luis & California, Higuera &
Tank Farm, Broad & High, Broad &
Rockview, Broad & Capitolio, Johnson &
Orcutt, Broad & TankFarm, Broad & Airport.
City/CalTrans -Dev. Impact Fees
-Developer Const.
-Grant Funding
-General Fund
Ancillary Plans
28
Various Specific
Plans
Margarita Area, Airport Area, Orcutt Area,
Broad Street Corridor, R.R. Dist., Mid-
Higuera, Downtown Concept., and Future
Plans as Adopted.
City/County/Cal
Trans/CalPoly
-Developer Const.
-Dev. Impact Fees
-Grant Funding
-General Fund
29
Various Trans.
Plans
Bicycle Plan, Downtown Pedestrian Plan,
Short Range Transit Plan, Access & Parking
Mgmt. Plan, and Future Plans as Adopted.
City/County/
CalTrans/
CalPoly
-Developer Const.
-Dev. Impact Fees
-Grant Funding
-General Fund
Page 38 of Draft CE
9.1.6 Streetscapes and major roadways
In the acquisition, design, construction or significant modification of major roadways (highways /
regional routes and arterial streets), the City willshall promote the creation of “streetscapes” and linear
scenic parkways or corridors that promote the City’scity’s visual quality and character, enhance adjacent
uses, and integrate roadways with surrounding districts. To accomplish this, the City willshall:
A. Establish streetscape design standards for major roadways;
B. Establish that where feasible roundabouts shall be the City’s preferred intersection alternative
due to improved aesthetics, reduction in impervious surface areas, and additional landscaping
area;
BC. Encourage the creation and maintenance median planters and widened parkway plantings;
C.D. Retain mature trees in the public right-of-way;
D.E. Emphasize the planting and maintaining of California Native tree species of sufficient height,
spread, form and horticultural characteristics to create the desired streetscape canopy, shade,
buffering from adjacent uses, and other desired streetscape characteristics, consistent with the
Tree Ordinance or as recommended by the Tree Committee or as approved by the Architectural
Review Commission.
E.F Encourage the use of water-conserving landscaping, street furniture, decorative lighting and
paving, arcaded walkways, public art, and other pedestrian-oriented features to enhance the
streetscape appearance, comfort and safety.
F.G Identify gateways into the City including improvements such as landscaped medians, wayfinding
and welcoming signage, arches, lighting enhancements, pavement features, sidewalks, and
different crosswalk paving types.
F.H. Encourage and where possible, required undergrounding of overhead utility lines and
structures.
G.I. When possible, signs in the public right-of-way should be consolidated on a single, low-profile
standard.
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 244
.J In the Downtown, streetscape improvements shall be consistent with the Downtown Pedestrian
Plan.
Chapter 11 Air Transportation
Page 44 of the CE
11.0.1 Interstate Air Service
The City shall support and encourage expansion of air transportation services, as forecasted in the
Airport Master Plan and approved by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration).
Page 19 of Draft CE
11.1.4 Update of the Airport Land Use Plan
The City shall encourage work with the County Airport Land Use Commission to complete its updates of
the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Airport in regard to significant changes in
noise, adjacent land impacts, and safety zones.
Chapter 12 Rail Transportation
Coordination with Organizations Regarding Safety and Environmental Sensitivity
Page 46 of Draft CE
12.1.3 Idling Train Engines Interagency Cooperation.
The City shall coordinate railroad facility infrastructure maintenance with the Union Pacific Railroad and
the Public Utilities Commission. In addition, the City shall work with the Air Pollution Control District and
others to eliminate discourage idling train engines in San Luis Obispo.
12.1.4 Railroad Hazards Reduction. The City shall monitor and respond to changes, or proposed changes
in passenger and freight rail traffic that may impact the safety and well-being of residents of the
community including the transport of combustible materials.
12.1.5 Transport of Combustible Materials. “The City shall discourage the transportation of oil and
other combustible hydrocarbons through the City.”
Chapter 13 Parking Management
Page 47 of Draft CE
13.1.1 Parking Management Plan
The City willshall maintain and periodically regularly update its Access and Parking Management Plan
(every 5 years) including parking demand reduction strategies and consider emerging best practices
such as unbundled parking, smart parking technologies and cash out programs.
Chapter 15 Scenic Roadways
Page 52 of Draft CE
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 245
15.0.5 Scenic Highways
The City will promote the creation of Scenic Highways within San Luis Obispo and adjoining county
areas. This support can happen should be strongly advocated when:
1.A. Reviewing draft county general plan elements or major revisions to them.
2.B. Reviewing changes to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as a member agency of the San Luis
Obispo Council Regional Transportation Agency.
3.C. Reviewing development projects that are referred to the city that are located along routes shown in
the Conservation and Open Space Element.
D. Actively participating in the development and periodic updates of the Caltrans US 101 Aesthetic Study
in San Luis Obispo County.
Chapter 16 Circulation Element Implementation, Program Funding and Management
Page 56 of Draft CE
16.0.6 New Policy Distribution of Transportation Funding
The City shall encourage SLOCOG to consider initiating a county wide revenue measure devoted to local
transportation funding on the basis of population, so that San Luis Obispo County becomes a “self help”
county.
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 246
Other Elements and Plans
South Broad Street Area Plan Edit to footnote 4 on page C-29:
Medical services
To approve a Medical Service use in the C-S zone, the Hearing Officer must make the
following findings:
a. The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses.
b. The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic or create parking
impacts in residential neighborhoods.
c. The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
dc. The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for
these uses when compared with medical services.
ed. The project site can accommodate the parking requirements of the proposed
medical service and will not result in other lease spaces being under-utilized
because of a lack of available parking.
SAFETY ELEMENT
Fire Page 5-10 of the General Plan
3.0 Adequate Fire Services
Development should shall be approved only when adequate fire suppression services and
facilities are available or will be made available concurrent with development, considering the
setting, type, intensity, and form of the proposed development.
Airport Hazards Page 5-23 of the General Plan
The San Luis Obispo County Airport provides commuter, charter, and private service to the area
(Figure 7). The primary hazard associated with the airport is the risk of aircraft crashing on
approach and take-off Aircraft flight operations are determined largely by the physical layout of the
airport and rules of the Federal Aviation Administration. Activities on the airport property are
managed by the County.
In April 1998, a private plane made an em ergency landing on Los Osos Valley Road west of
Foothill Boulevard, narrowly missing power lines and cars.
Existing land uses under the approach and take-off paths include agriculture and businesses close
to the airport, and shopping centers, dwellings, and schools at greater distances. State law requires
the independent, countywide Airport Land Use Commission to adopt an Airport Land Use Plan for
each airport. This plan establishes zones based on flight patterns, with the aim of having future
development be compatible with airport operations, considering safety and noise exposure. State
and County policies encourage future development to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
The City’s General Plan Land Use Element designates land-use categories that are meant to be
consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. When the City com prehensively updated its Land Use
Element in 1994, the Airport Land Use Commission was preparing an update of the Airport Land
Use Plan. When this Safety Element was adopted in 2000, the Airport Land Use Plan update had
not been completed. The Airport Land Use Plan was last amended in 2005 and is in process of
being updated again . There were some discrepancies between the City’s Land Use Element and
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 247
the Airport Land Use Plan, mainly affecting potential residential development in the Margarita
Specific Plan Area. Changes to one or both of the plans will be needed to resolve the
inconsistencies. With the most recent update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements, the Cit y
went through an exhaustive process to evaluate safety, hazard, obstruction, and noise
concerns associated with the current and future operation of the airport. Proposed development
associated with the Land Use and Circulation Elements update is consistent with the County of San
Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan unless a determination of inconsistency by the Airport Land
Use Commission is made and the City overrules that determination as allowed under Section 21676.5
et. seq. of the Public Utilities Code. Should an overrule action be taken, development shall be
consistent with direction in the State Aeronautics Act, the FAA regulations concerning obstructions
and notification, and guidance provided in the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook. The City will continue to work with the Airport Land Use Commission as it
updates the Airport Land Use Plan for San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport to strive to achieve
consistency between the Airport Land Use Plan and the City’s General Plan.
8.0 Policy: Uses in the Airport Land Use Plan Area
Development should be permitted only if it is cons istent with the requirements of the California
State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code §21670, et. seq.), guidance from the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook, and other related federal and state requirements relating to airport
land use compatibility planning, and the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan
unless the City overrules a determination of inconsistency in accordance with Section 21676.5 et.
seq. of the Public Utilities Code. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. Prospective
buyers of property that is subject to airport influence should be so informed.
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 248
CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
Cultural Heritage Page 6-16 to 17 of the General Plan
3.3.2 Demolitions.
Historically or architecturally significant buildings should shall not be demolished or
substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a
threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to
acceptable levels are infeasible.
3.3.5 Historic districts and neighborhoods.
In evaluating new public or private development, the City should shall identify and
protect neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect
of Contributing or Master List historic properties.
3.5.11 Southern Pacific Water Tower.
The historic Southern Pacific Water Tower and adjoining City-owned land should shall
be maintained as open space or parkland.
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 249
NOISE ELEMENT
Page 4-17 – Replace Figure 6 with:
Att 4 - Exhibit A
PH2 - 250
£¤10
1
UV22
7
La
g
u
n
a
La
k
e
£¤10
1
£¤1
SP
-
1
SP
-
4
SP
-
2
SP
-
3
BR O AD
OR CU TT
BU
C
K
LE
Y
TA
NK
F
AR
M
JOHN
SON
M
I
L
L
CHOR
R
O
P
I
S
M
O
H
I
G
U
E
R
A
LOS
O
S
O
S
V
A LLE
Y
M
A
D
O
N
N
A
FOO
T
HI
LL
HI
G
H
M
A
R
S
H
HIGU
ERA S
L
E
F
F
I
S
L
A
Y
HI
GH
L
A
ND
FL ORA
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
W
T OR O
PRA
D
O
OSOS
SO
U
T
H
B
U
C
H
O
N
GRAND
CA LI FORN
IA
SA NT A R OS A N
SANT
A RO
S
A
MO RRO
P
E
A
C
H
ELK
S
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
SA
N
L
U
I
S
NIPO
MO
E
L
L
A
LO
O
MI
S
BI
S
H
O
P
A UGU ST A
EV
AN
S
BR
A
N
C
H
PO
IN
S
ETTIA
LA
U
R
EL
H ILL
HOOVER
DIA
B
L
O
BU LLO CK
LUN
E
T
A
V IA CA RTA
D EL R
I
O
P
A
L
M
VACHELL
MO UNT BI SH OP
F
U
L
L
E
R
OCE
A
N
AIR E
V
A
L
L
E
V
I
S
T
A
R
O
Y
A
L
P
O
L
Y C
A
N
Y
O
N
CASA
L
I
Z
Z
I
E
PEPP
E
R
LINCOLN
SAC
R
A ME NTO
JEFFREY
SU
B
UR
BAN
LIMA
M
I
O
S
S
I
G
A
T
H
E
O
L
I
V
E
WO
O
DB
RI
D
GE
GR OVE
SL
AC
K
R OC KV IEW
AIR
P
O
R
T
SA
N
D
E
R
C
O
C
K
W
A
L
N
U
T
LONG
BA LB OA
HA
Y
S
TI
B
U
R
O
N
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
BEEBEED
A
N
A
SANTA FE
HO
PE
S
Y
D
N
E
Y
I
R
I
S
CE
R
RO
R
O
M
AU
L
DO
LA
W
RE
NCE
D ALIDIO
FIXLI
NI
LAWTON
McC
O
L
L
U
M
NA
SELLA
FRE
D
E
R
I
C
K
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
U
P
H
A
M
O
A
K
HI
N
D
SIER
R
A
MA
R
G
AR
IT
A
BR
ID
G
E
SPANISH OAKS
ELM
V ICT O RIA
G
O
LD
EN
R
O
D
VIA LA GUN
A VISTA
SO
U
T
H
W
O
O
D
BO
N
D
GA LL E ON
K
E
N
D
A
L
L
HAN
SEN
SAG
E
IR
ON
B
AR
K
KING
MU
R
R
A
Y
CO
R
R
IDA
SER
R
A
N
O
VIL LAGE
T
A
N
G
L
E
W
O
O
D
OJA
I
GRAVES
MI
S
S
I
O
N
MIT
CH
E
L
L
KLA MATH
AL-HIL
HELE
N
A
WAV
E
RTREE
DA
L
Y
IS
A
BEL
LA
DE ER
GR
A
N
A
D
A
V IC EN TE
L
A
G
U
N
A
E
T
O
PR
E
FU
M
O
C
A
NY
O
N
TONI
NI
FE
LT
O
N
CL
A
RI
O
N
ZA
C
A
M IR ADA
ALBER
T
L A E NTRA DA
EL ME
R
C
A DO
McMILLAN
TR
UC
K
E
E
ST
ON
ER
I
D
GE
W
O
O
DS
I
D
E
SEQU
O
I
A
C
L
O
V
E
R
GARIBALDIC
O
R
R
A
L
ITO
S
AL
D
E
R
CR
A
I
G
F
I
E
R
O
DE VAUL
R
A
N
C
H
MA
L
IBU
M
O
N
T
A
L
B
A
N
EMILY
MEI
N
E
C
K
E
CU ESTA
PARKER
BO
YS
E
N
AL
R
ITA
CE
N
T
ER
FA
R
M
HO
US
E
WI
LS
O
N
VI LL AGE DR
JESPERSON
SO
U
T
H
P
ER
I
M
ET
E
R
ESPERANZA
LEONA
RA
M
O
N
A
THE LMA
TW
I
N
RID
G
E
UN IVER SITY
C
A
M
P
U
S
W
A
Y
LO
S P
A
L
O
S
CR
O
SS
DAVENPORT CREEK
OAKRIDGE
HORIZON
PR
O
S
PE
C
T
HOL LY HO CK
RACHEL
C
O
NE
JO
RO
SE
HID
D
E
N SP
RING
S
JANE
LO S CERRO
SPATRICIA
HATHWAY
POA
KA
RE
N
LO
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
MAR
I
P
O
SA
WES
T
MON
T
S
P
I
T
F
I
R
E
SA
N
T
A
Y
NE
Z
CU
Y
A
M
A
VIS
T
A
CO
L
L
AD
O
S
C
O
R
D
O
V
A
SUN
F
L
O WE R
BO
NE
T
T
I
V
E
G
A
CYPRESS
DUNCAN
JU
NI
PER
O
MELLO
WAL KE R
WE
S
T
F AIRW
AY
THREAD
ALT
A
BEE
C
H
SU NSET
BRIZZOLARA
E
L
C
A
P
I
T
A
N
TA
F
T
SN
A
P
DR
A
G
O
N
O'CONN
ER
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
MI
RA
S
OL
BUSHNELL
KEN
T
W
OOD
FER
N
A
N
DEZ
LE
XING
T
ON
RO
UG
E
O
T
CH
A
PA
RR
A
L
B
R
E
C
K
A
U
T
O
P
A
R
K
SAN
S
I
ME
O
N
BROOK
LA
CITA
RAILRO
AD
VI
LL
A
SKYLARK
BA
SIL
C
A
R
L
A
F
R
O
O
M
R
A
N
C
H
OLD WINDMILL
W
I
L
L
O
W
D
A
H
L
I
A
DO
N
EG
A
L
R
I
C
H
FA RRI ER
A
Z
A
L
E
A
H
A
T
H
W
A
Y
BRO AD
S
A
N
T
A F
E
BRO AD
MISSIO
N
P
A
L
M
GRO
V
E
SLA
C
K
SL
O
E
I
R
_
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
_
P
r
p
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
_
2
0
1
4
0
6
1
2
_
J
K
C
.
p
d
f
Figure 3LegendLand Use Inside LUCE SOI Planning Subarea Open Space Agriculture Park Recreation Suburban Residential Low Density Residential Med Density Residential Med High Density Residential High Density Residential General Retail Community Commercial Tourist Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Business Park Services & Manufacturing Office Public Margarita Area Specific Plan Specific Plan Land Use Outside LUCE SOI Planning Subarea Unincorporated Agriculture & Open Space Unincorporated Rural Residential Unincorporated Suburban Residential Other LUCE SOI Planning Subarea Urban Reserve City Limits Freeway Highway/ Regional Route Arterial Local Railroad Water Body Source: City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Diagram010.5 Mile
ATT 4 - Exhibit B
PH2 - 251
int op sp
F
L
O
R
A
KNOLL
Proposed Land Use
0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Interim Open Space to Low Density Residential
F
L
O
R
A
KNOLL
µ
Alrita Area
AT
T
4
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
PH2 - 252
med dens res
lowdens res
int op sp
med hi dens res
HIGHLAN
D
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
N
C
H
O
R
R
O
N
PA
S
E
O
B
E
L
L
A
M
O
N
T
A
N
A
Proposed Land Use
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Interim Open Space to Medium Density Residential
HIGHLAN
D
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
N
C
H
O
R
R
O
N
CO
U
P
E
R
PA
S
E
O
B
E
L
L
A
M
O
N
T
A
N
A
µ
Bella Montana
AT
T
4
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
PH2 - 253
FOO
T
H
I
L
L
LA LO
M
A
FOOTH
I
L
L
W
Proposed Land Use
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Interim Open Space toLow Density Residential
FOO
T
H
I
L
L
LA LOMA
FOOTH
I
L
L
W
L
O
S
C
E
R
R
O
S
µ
Bishop Knoll
AT
T
4
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
PH2 - 254
open space
int op sp
public
low dens res med dens res
med hi dens res
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
N
M
O
U
N
T
B
I
S
H
O
P
Proposed Land Use
0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Interim Open Space toPublic Facilities
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
N
M
O
U
N
T
B
I
S
H
O
P
WESTMONT
µ
Cal Fire/ Cal Poly
AT
T
4
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
PH2 - 255
Service Commercial
CAL
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
Proposed Land Use
0 0.20.1 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Service & Manufacturing to Tourist Commercial
Zoning: Service Commercial (C-S) to Tourist Commercial (C-T-SF)CAL
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
µ
Calle Joaquin
AT
T
4
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
PH2 - 256
office
low dens res
high dens res high dens res
genl retail
nbhd coml
com coml
open space
high dens res
office
public
BR
O
A
D
FOOTHILL
MURRAY
CH
O
R
R
O
MEINECKE
BOY
S
E
N
SA
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
N
C
H
O
R
R
O
N
BE
N
T
O
N
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
ROUGEOT
RAMONA
Proposed Land Use
0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial
Zoning: Neighborhood- Commercial (C-N-SF) toCommunity Commercial (C-C-SF)
BR
O
A
D
FOOTHILL
MURRAY
CH
O
R
R
O
MEINECKE
BOY
S
E
N
SAN
T
A
R
O
S
A
N
C
H
O
R
R
O
N
BE
N
T
O
N
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
ROUGEOT
RAMONA
µ
Foothill Blvd/Santa Rosa Area
AT
T
4
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
PH2 - 257
public
office
med dens res
low dens res
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
F
L
O
R
A
BISHO
P
LIZZIE
FI
X
L
I
N
I
SYDNE
Y
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
SI
E
R
R
A
W
I
L
D
I
N
G
ELLA
P
A
R
K
L
A
N
D
S
U
N
S
E
T
SMITH
S
K
Y
L
A
R
K
CECEL
I
A
WOODLA
N
D
IRIS
VIEWM
O
N
T
RICH E
L
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
CORON
A
Proposed Land Use
0 0.3 0.60.15 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Low Density Res to Public Facility
Zoning: Low-density Residential (R-1) to Public Facility (PF-SF)
GP: Low Density Res to Med Density Res
Zoning: Low-density Residential (R-1) toMed Density Res (R-2-SF)
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
F
L
O
R
A
BISHO
P
LIZZIE
FIXLINI
SYDNE
Y
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
SI
E
R
R
A
SMITH
CECEL
I
A
RICH E
L
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
µ
General Hospital
AT
T
4
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
PH2 - 258
open space
low dens res
tourist
int op sp
int op sp
serv man
public
med dens res
LOS
P
A
L
O
S
HIG
U
E
R
A
S
CAL
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
LOS
V
E
R
D
E
S
VIST
A
LI
N
D
A
MA
R
I
P
O
S
A
PER
L
A
E
L
M
I
R
A
D
O
R
CO
N
T
E
N
T
A
Proposed Land Use
0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Interim Open Space to Low Density Residential
Zoning: Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-10) to Low Density Residential (R-1-SF)
GP: Interim Open Space to Medium Density Residential
Zoning: Zoning: Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-20) to Medium Density Residential (R-2-SF)
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
LOS PALOS
HIG
U
E
R
A
S
LOS
V
E
R
D
E
S
CAL
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
EN
C
A
N
T
O
µ
LOVR Creekside Area
AT
T
4
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
PH2 - 259
open space
int op sp
tourist
int op sp
MADO
N
N
A
Proposed Land Use
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Interim Open Space to Agriculture
GP: Interim Open Space to Tourist Commercial
MADO
N
N
A
FE
R
N
A
N
D
E
Z
µ
Madonna Inn Area
AT
T
4
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
PH2 - 260
Public Facility
V
I
C
E
N
T
E
GARCI
A
H
U
A
S
N
A
LI
M
A
P
E
R
E
I
R
A
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
SOLA
FROOM
R
A
N
C
H
CAYUC
O
S
PICO
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
Proposed Land Use
0 0.20.1 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Public to Park
Zoning: Public Facility (PF-SF)
GP: Public
Zoning: Public Facility (PF-SF) to Commercial Retail (C-R-SF)
GARCI
A
V
I
C
E
N
T
E
H
U
A
S
N
A
P
E
R
E
I
R
A
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
PICO
SOLA LIMA
CAYUC
O
S
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
µ
Pacific Beach
AT
T
4
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
PH2 - 261
med dens res
serv man
low dens res
park
open space
nbhd comlpublic
med hi dens res
open space
com coml
public
office
low dens res
Proposed Land Use
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Services & Manufacturing to Commercial Retail
Zoning: Service-Commercial (C-S) to Retail-Commercial (C-R-SF)
B
R
O
A
D
BISH
O
P
HIGH
LAWRENCE
LA
W
T
O
N
VI
C
T
O
R
I
A
UPHAM
R
O
C
K
V
I
E
W
MITCHELL
CAUDILL
WOODBRIDGE
SOUTH
Mc
M
I
L
L
A
N
STONERIDGE
GA
R
I
B
A
L
D
I
CH
O
R
R
O
EM
I
L
Y
ORCUTT
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
ST
O
R
Y
BRANCH SA
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
RA
C
H
E
L
ME
A
D
O
W
FLORENCE
PERKIN
S
FUNSTON
BLU
E
R
O
C
K
GA
I
L
CHURC
H
MAS
O
N
SWEEN
E
Y
SW
A
Z
E
Y
SI
E
R
R
A
L
A
D
E
R
A
MUTSU
H
I
T
O
ALPHO
N
S
O
CH
A
N
D
L
E
R
JENNIFER
PAULINE
MORRISON
SYLVIA
LAWRE
N
C
E
CAUDIL
L
µ
South Broad Street Corridor
AT
T
4
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
PH2 - 262
serv man
int op sp
office
office
ELK
S
PRAD
O
H
I
G
U
E
R
A
S
HI
G
U
E
R
A
S
Proposed Land Use
0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Interim Open Space to Community Commercial
Zoning: Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-10) to Community Commercial (C-C-SF)
EL
K
S
PRAD
O
H
I
G
U
E
R
A
S
µ
Sunset/ Prado Area
AT
T
4
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
PH2 - 263
com coml
businesspark
B
R
O
A
D
TANK FAR
M
Proposed Land Use
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Business Park to Community Commercial
Zoning: Business Park (BP) toCommunity Commercial (C-C-SF)
B
R
O
A
D
TANK FAR
M
µ
Tank Farm/ Broad Street Area
AT
T
4
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
PH2 - 264
Attachment 5
Introduction of Ordinances
for AOZ, SF, and rezoning
PH2 - 265
Attachment 5
ORDINANCE NO. #### (2014 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING
REGULATIONS) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (GPI/ER 15-12)
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 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
desires of the community. These efforts were informed by input from a community-
wide survey and public workshops held during this time; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, on December 12th and 16th, 2013, for the purpose of reviewing
recommendations of the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update
(TF-LUCE) and recommending a set of policy changes for the Land Use and
Circulation Elements (LUCE) to be studied through the environmental review process;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the
recommendations of the Planning Commission at public hearings conducted January
14th and 28th, 2014 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, for the purpose of initiating the LUCE update project description to
be considered through the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was released on June 13, 2014 with a 45 day
comment period that closed on July 28, 2014, the Final EIR was issued on September 3,
2014, was recommended for certification by the Planning Commission on September
10, 2014, and was certified by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on
September 16, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, on September 10th, 11th, 17th, & 18th 2014, for the purpose of
considering General Plan Amendments proposed as part of the Land Use and
Circulation Element Update project including General Plan Land Use Element diagram
and Zoning map changes; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of San Luis Obispo, conducted
public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
PH2 - 266
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
2
Obispo, California on September 16, 2014; and adopted resolutions certifying the
programmatic EIR, approving the land use designations and policies for Bishop Knolls
and General Hospital Special focus areas, and closing out the Sustainable Communities
Grant; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of San Luis Obispo, conducted
public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California on September 30, 2014, and reviewed and provided direction on the
draft Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ), draft Special Focus Overlay Zone, remaining
Chapter 8 focus areas and Chapter 11 of the Circulation Element; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of San Luis Obispo, conducted
public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California on October 7, 2014, and reviewed and provided direction on draft
Land Use Element and, reviewed and provided direction on Circulation Element; and,
WHEREAS, the LUCE update which was referred to the Airport Land Use
Commission within the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) boundaries and associated
Airport Overlay Zoning Regulations have previously been found inconsistent with the
ALUP, and the City Council has overruled the ALUC in accordance with requirements
of the State Aeronautics Act and is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 as stated
in Section 21670 et seq; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of San Luis Obispo, conducted
public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California on October 21, 2014, for the purpose of final adoption of the Land
Use and Circulation Element update project (LUCE).
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The Draft EIR for the Land Use
and Circulation Element Update was released on June 13, 2014 with a 45-day comment
period that closed on July 29, 2014 and the Final EIR was issued on September 3, 2014.
For each identified potentially significant effect under the categories of Agricultural
Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Services, mitigation measures were included
and incorporated into the LUCE Update project to reduce the identified potentially
significant adverse impacts to less than significant levels. The significant effects
identified in the Air Quality, Traffic and Circulation, and Noise sections of the EIR will
not be fully mitigated to a degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all the
identified mitigation measures included in the EIR. On September 10, 2014, the
Planning Commission reviewed and recommended Council adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations that the project benefits warrant project approval despite the
identified adverse environmental impacts. On September 16, 2014, the City Council
held a duly noticed public hearing and duly considered all evidence, including the
PH2 - 267
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
3
testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by the TF-
LUCE, Planning Commission, and staff presented at said hearing, and certified the
Final EIR pursuant to the required findings, including a Statement of Overriding
Considerations. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no
subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be required unless: (a) Project changes require
major revisions of the EIR; (b) Changed circumstances have occurred that require
major revisions of the EIR; or (c) New information becomes available that was not
known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified. The minor
LUCE Update policy amendments that have occurred since certification of the Final
EIR do not trigger any of these requirements for supplemental review under CEQA and
in fact most have the effect of reducing project impacts.
SECTION 2. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the
following findings:
1. The recommended Airport Overlay Zoning (AOZ) provides for implementation
of the Community’s intent to update the General Plan Land Use and Circulation
Elements with policies that balance goals for a vibrant economy and support of
housing opportunities with conservation of the City’s natural environment, and
protection of the City’s unique character and heritage that is consistent with the
State Aeronautics’ Act and guidance with the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook as evidenced by the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Update, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), Airport Compatibility
Report, prepared by Johnson Aviation, dated August 11, 2014.
2. Implementing Airport Overlay Zoning (AOZ) Regulations are consistent with
the General Plan since development envisioned in the draft Land Use and
Circulation Element Update (LUCE) would be consistent with the AOZ and
future development in areas envisioned for development within the airport area
located within Airport Land Use Plan Safety zones S-1b, S-1c, and S-2 would
be required to comply with regulations of the AOZ, which include land use
compatibility provisions, noise requirements, overflight and obstructions (Part
77) provisions, and disclosure requirements regarding airport operations
consistent with the State Aeronautics Act, Federal Aviation Administration
requirements, and guidance of the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook.
3. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare since Airport Overlay Zoning (AOZ) Regulations are consistent with
Article 3.5 of the State Aeronautics Act and provide adequate protection for
noise, safety, overflight, and airspace protection as evidenced in the overrule
findings supported by substantial evidence contained in the Johnson Aviation
Report.
PH2 - 268
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
4
4. Airport Overlay Zoning (AOZ) Regulations ensure that land uses and
development within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) are compatible with
existing and future airport operations since allowed uses and residential and
non-residential density regulations have been prepared using guidance from the
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan, State Aeronautics
Act, and California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Guidelines and the
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Update, Land Use and Circulation
Element (LUCE), and Airport Compatibility Report, prepared by Johnson
Aviation, dated August 11, 2014.
5. Proposed amendments to Land Use Element designations and Zoning map
changes associated with the update to the Land Use and Circulation Element
project support development and redevelopment of sites that will accommodate
the community’s future growth.
6. Recommended amendments to Land Use Element designations and Zoning map
changes associated with the update to the Land Use and Circulation Element
project correspond to recommended policy direction to address development
areas in the City or in the City’s urban reserve areas which have special
constraints or considerations.
7. Proposed amendments to Land Use Element designations and Zoning map
changes associated with the update to the Land Use and Circulation Element
project present opportunities in the community to develop customized land use
and circulation approaches or special design implementation to enhance their
appearance and achieve their respective development potential in a manner that
is consistent with community goals, objectives, and policies.
8. Land Use Element mapping amendments and Zoning changes associated with
implementation of the South Broad Street Area Plan are consistent with plans
for redevelopment reviewed through a separate planning effort involving 27
public hearings and approximately 40 public outreach efforts.
9. Establishment of the Special Focus Area Overlay Zone will ensure
implementation of Special Focus areas will be consistent with the intent of
policy language and objectives of Land Use and Circulation Element update and
ensure consistency with the State Aeronautics Act with ongoing guidance from
the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
SECTION 3. Chapter 17.22.010. Uses Allowed by Zones, of the City of San
Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
PH2 - 269
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
5
Chapter 17.22: Use Regulation
Section:
17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones.
17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones.
A. Status of Uses. Uses within zones shall be as provided in Table 9, subject to parts B
through J. below. In Table 9, symbols shall have these meanings:
A The use is allowed;
D If the director approves an administrative use permit as provided in Sections
17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the use may be established;
PC If the planning commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020
through 17.58.080, the use may be established;
A/D The use is allowed above the ground floor. If the director approves an administrative
use permit, it may be established on the ground floor.
Special notes affecting the status of uses, indicated by number in Table 9, may be found at
the end of the table.
B. Airport Land Use Plan and Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ). Development and uses within
Airport Land Use Plan safety zones S-1b, S-1c, and S-2 are subject to requirements of
Airport Overlay Zone Chapter 17.57. Development and uses within the Runway Protection
Zone (RPZ) and ALUP area S-1a shall be consistent with provisions of the ALUP. Most
areas within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) are located within Specific Plan areas. Areas
within the AOZ which are located in Specific Plans designated with SP zoning shall follow
regulations within their respective Specific Plans.
C. Interpretation of Use Listing. These regulations are intended to permit similar types of
uses within each zone. The director, subject to the appeal procedures of Chapter 17.66,
shall determine whether uses which are not listed shall be deemed allowed or allowed
subject to use permit approval in a certain zone. This interpretation procedure shall not be
used as a substitute for the amendment D.
D. Principal and Accessory Uses. Listed uses are principal uses. Accessory uses are
allowed with principal uses.
E. Production and Sales. Where manufacturing is allowed, incidental sale of items made on
the premises is allowed. When sale of a particular type of item is allowed, craftsman-type
production of such an item for sale on the premises is allowed.
F Public School Uses. See Section 17.36.030 concerning uses which may be established
within public schools.
G. Prohibition of Drive-through Facilities. Drive-through facilities are not allowed in any
zone.
H. Prohibition of Vacation Rentals. Vacation rentals are not allowed in any zone.
I. Prohibition of Mineral Extraction. Commercial mining is prohibited in City limits. (Ord.
1365 (2000 series)(part)
J. Specific Plan Consistency. Some land subject to City zoning is also subject to one of
PH2 - 270
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
6
several Specific Plans, which are intended to provide additional policies and development
standards for the development of those areas. Land within Specific Plans, designated by
the SP zoning, may be subject to further restrictions. The list of uses and permit
requirements in the Specific Plan shall prevail.
SECTION 4. Chapter 17.53. Special Focus Area (S-F) Overlay Zone. of the
City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
Chapter 17.53: Special Focus Area (S-F) Overlay Zone
Sections:
17.53.010 Purpose and Application
17.53.020 Allowed Uses and Development Standards
17.53.030 Subsequent Amendments
17.53.010 Purpose and application.
The SF Overlay Zone is intended to translate the provisions of General Plan Land Use Element
Chapter 8 (Special Focus Areas) into regulations for the subsequent development of land. It
will be applied to areas identified in Chapter 8 as Special Planning Areas, where the General
Plan Land Use Element calls for special design concepts.
17.53.020 Allowed uses and development standards.
All development within the Special Planning Areas shall adhere to the requirements of the
underlying zone district and the provisions for each of the respective Special Planning Areas,
as described in Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element. In addition, development objectives within
each of the Special Planning Areas shall be interpreted by the Community Development
Director or applicable advisory body or commission in order to achieve the development
objectives of the Special Focus Areas. Where provisions of the underlying zone and Land Use
Element Chapter 8 conflict, Land Use Element policies shall take precedence. Planning
Commission review and approval is required for the following Special Focus Areas: Foothill
Boulevard/Santa Rosa, Cal Trans Site, Madonna Inn Area, Sunset Drive-in Theater/Prado
Road Area, LOVR Creekside Area as shown the Land Use Element.
17.53.030 Subsequent Amendments.
Minor adjustments to internal zone district boundaries within each of the Special Planning
Areas may be proposed or required during development review based on physical site
conditions, environmental impacts and other factors, as deemed appropriate in order to best
implement policies and programs contained in the General Plan.
SECTION 5. Chapter 17.57. Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) of the City of San
Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
PH2 - 271
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
7
PH2 - 272
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
8
Chapter 17.57: Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)
Sections:
17.57.010 Purpose and Intent.
17.57.020 Applicability
17.57.030 Procedures
17.57.040 Development Standards and Uses
17.57.050 Overlay Zones
17.57.060 Airspace protection
17.57.070 Noise
17.57.080 Overflight Notice
17.57.090 Open Land
17.57.010 Purpose and intent.
The purpose and intent of the Airport Overlay Zoning District is to:
A. Implement the City’s General Plan policies to ensure that all land uses within the
Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) are consistent with the State Aeronautics Act, State Law,
Federal Aviation Administration Regulations, and guidance of the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook.
B. Ensure that land uses and development within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) are
compatible with existing and future airport operations.
C. Prohibit the establishment of incompatible uses and further expansion of incompatible
uses which could detrimentally affect long term economic vitality of the airport; and to
avoid or minimize exposure of persons to potential hazards associated with current and
future airport operations.
D. Prohibit development, uses, or any installations or activities which could represent a
hazard to existing and future flight operations.
E. Recognize unique constraints and considerations which apply to properties potentially
affected by airport operations by establishing regulations and review criteria for land
use and development which apply specifically to properties within the Airport Overlay
Zone (AOZ).
F. Recognize the boundary of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use
Plan (ALUP) within the city limits by establishment of an Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ).
17.57.020 Applicability
Regulations in this Chapter shall apply to all uses, activities, and existing and proposed
development on properties within Safety zones S-1b, S-1c and S-2 designated in the ALUP.
Should an override action be taken, the City shall ensure that development is consistent with
direction in the State Aeronautics Act, the FAA regulations, and guidance provided in the
Caltrans division of Aeronautics Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. New development and
PH2 - 273
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
9
land uses within the Runway Protection Zone and S-1a ALUP Safety Zones shall be consistent
with provisions of the ALUP.
A. Specific Plans. For properties located within the AOZ which also are located within
specific plans, development regulations, standards, and policies shall be followed per
respective specific plans. In cases where policies or standards are not provided within
the specific plan, the policies and standards within this Chapter will apply in addition to
other applicable Zoning Regulations, General Plan, or other standards and regulations
which apply to the project or land use. In no case will a land use, activity, or
development be allowed to violate Airspace Protection Standards of 17.57.060.
B. Existing Development and Land Uses. Non-conforming uses and structures shall
comply with Airspace Protection Standards of 17.57.060 which prohibit any activities
that pose a risk to flight operations within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ). Existing
land uses that are not consistent with the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) are non-
conforming uses and may continue, but may not expand more than 10% beyond the
permitted project size at the time of adoption of the AOZ. No increase in density for
non-conforming residential land uses is permitted. Non-conforming uses shall comply
with Zoning Regulations Chapters 17.10 and 17.14 (Non-conforming uses and Non-
conforming structures) provisions for expiration of non-conforming status and proposed
changes in land use which do not conform to the AOZ.
Development or land uses shall be considered “existing” if one of the following
conditions is met:
1. A vesting tentative map has been approved and has not expired or all discretionary
approvals have been obtained and have not expired.
2. Building permits have been issued and have not expired.
3. The structures and site development have been legally established and physically
exist.
17.57.030 Procedures
A. Approval. All ministerial and discretionary actions within the Airport Overlay Zoning
District (AOZ) shall be reviewed for consistency with this Chapter prior to approval.
B. Mandatory findings for approval. When a project or activity is subject to discretionary
actions requiring a public hearing or notice, the applicable review authority shall make
all of the following findings, as applicable:
1. The project or use complies with the noise compatibility policies of the Airport
Overlay Zone (AOZ).
2. The project or use complies with residential and non-residential density standards
in Table 10 of the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ).
3. The project or use complies with Table 10 of the applicable Airport Overlay Zone.
4. The project or use complies with the airspace protection policies of the Airport
Overlay Zone.
5. The project or use complies with the overflight policies of the Airport Overlay Zone.
A. Amendments. Other than General Plan, Specific Plan, or Zoning Code changes
addressed through a previous referral to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
PH2 - 274
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
10
Land Use Commission (ALUC), proposed general plan land use amendments, zoning
amendments, and specific plan amendments that impact density or intensity of
development within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) shall be referred to the Airport
Land Use Commission for a determination of compatibility with the adopted Airport
Land Use Plan.
B. Overrule Provisions. Should the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) update the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use
Plan (ALUP), the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo shall review the updated
ALUP and either make changes to applicable General Plan sections, Zoning, and
implementing ordinances, or the City Council may, pursuant to Public Utilities Code
Section 21676(b), overrule the ALUC.
17.57.040 Development Standards and Uses.
Land use compatibility standards are intended to minimize the risk to people and property on
the ground as well as to people in an aircraft in the event of an accident or emergency landing
occurring outside the airport boundary.
A. Allowable Uses & Non-Residential Density. Table 10 lists the uses that are
appropriate in the Airport Land Use Plan Safety Zones S-1b, S-1c and S-2. Table 10
includes maximum density standards for the safety zones listed above which shall be
calculated in accordance with the following method:
1. Non-residential density calculation. Calculations of non-residential density
shall be based on requirements of SLOMC 17.16.060. Parking Space
Requirements with the assumption of 1.3 occupants per space and gross parcel
size including adjacent roads to centerline of right-of-way. Non-residential density
shall be calculated prior to reductions for shared use, trip reduction, bicycle, etc.
In determining allowed persons per acre, all fractions shall be rounded to the
nearest whole number.
Example - Proposed Development: Two office buildings, each two stories and
containing 20,000 square feet of floor area per building. Site size is 3.0 net acres.
Counting the adjacent road to centerline of the right-of-way, 3.5 acres gross. The
number of people on the property is assumed to equal 1.3 times the number of
parking spaces.
The average usage intensity would therefore be calculated as follows:
(1) 40,000 sq. ft. floor area x 1.0 parking space per 300 sq. ft. = 134
(2) 134 parking spaces x 1.3 persons per space = 174 persons per acre.
(3) 174 persons/3.5 acres gross site size = 50 persons per acre average for the
site.
2. Exceptions. Subject to approval of an administrative use permit, the Community
Development Director may determine another method of density calculation is
appropriate based on the particular characteristics of the proposed use and/or
development. The method of calculation shall remain consistent with
recommended methodologies of Appendix “G” of the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook.
B. Interpretation of use listing. The Community Development Director, subject to the
PH2 - 275
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
11
appeal procedures of Chapter 17.66, shall determine whether uses which are not listed
shall be deemed allowed or allowed subject to use permit approval in a certain zone
that are consistent with the State Aeronautics Act with guidance from the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. This interpretation procedure shall not be used
as a substitute for the amendment procedure as a means of adding new types of uses
to Table 10.
PH2 - 276
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
12
PH2 - 277
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
13
PH2 - 278
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
14
PH2 - 279
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
15
PH2 - 280
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
16
PH2 - 281
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
17
PH2 - 282
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
18
17.57.050 Airport Overlay Zone
The Safety zone boundaries described within the Airport Overlay Zone are consistent with the
adopted San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan.
17.57.060 Airspace Protection
Airspace Protection. Airspace protection standards are intended 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. Airspace protection standards regarding Obstruction and Hazards to air navigation are
defined in the Airport Land Use Plan and apply to land uses and development within the Airport
Overlay Zone as summarized below:
1. Objects affecting navigable airspace. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR Part 77)
and Public Utility Code (PUC) Section 21659 require that structures not 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 airspace surrounding an airport is divided
into segments called “imaginary surfaces,” which identify height limits for objects that
PH2 - 283
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
19
require further study by the FAA to avoid creating hazards to air navigation. Structures
that have the potential to be considered an obstruction by the FAA shall be subject to
the provisions listed in a-c below:
a. Proponents of a project shall file a Notice of Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-
1) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) if a proposed structure is more
than 200 feet above ground level or may exceed one foot in height for every 100
feet from the edge of the nearest point on the runway for a distance up to 20,000
feet. Filing Form 7460-1 with the FAA will initiate an aeronautical study that will
ensure a proposed structure does not constitute a hazard to air navigation or would
not create an unsafe condition for air navigation, including impeding any en route or
terminal (airport) instrument procedures as per the United States Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) described in FAA Order 8260.3B (Code
of Federal Regulations §77.29 Evaluating Aeronautical Effect).
b. Approvals for such projects may include the requirement for an avigation easement,
marking or lighting of the structure, or modifications to the structure. The avigation
easement shall be consistent with the form and content of Exhibit H1 in appendix H
of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
c. Building permits shall not be issued for a project until a Determination of No Hazard
has been issued by the FAA and any conditions in that Determination are met.
2. Other Flight Hazards Prohibited. Any activities within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)
which could pose a hazard to flight operations including but not limited to the following:
a. Glare or distracting lights that could be mistaken for airport lights;
b. Sources of dust, heat, steam, or smoke that may impair pilot vision, or light shows,
or laser shows or spotlights;
c. Any emissions that may cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air that
generate turbulence within the flight path;
d. Sources of electrical interference with aircraft communications or navigation; and
e. Features that create an increased attraction for wildlife that may be hazardous to
airport operations such as attraction of birds to the extent of creating a significant
hazard of bird strikes (examples are outdoor storage or disposal of food or grain, or
large, artificial water features; this provision is not intended to prevent
enhancement or protection of existing wetlands or the mitigation of wetlands
impacts). Features which may pose these risks shall be reviewed for consistency
with the FAA’s Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on
or Near Airports.
f. Entails installation, construction, or enlargement of a structure that constitutes an
obstruction to air navigation through penetration of FAA Part 77 surfaces except as
may be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
17.57.070 Noise
A. Airport Related Noise. Noise compatibility standards are intended to prevent the
establishment of noise - sensitive land uses in portions of the airport environ that are
exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. Where permitted within the Airport Overlay
Zone (AOZ), the following noise - sensitive land uses shall comply with applicable noise
exposure criteria.
PH2 - 284
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
20
1. Noise analysis from the Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (2006), or
subsequent noise analysis used to update the Airport Master Plan shall be used for
mapping of the long term noise impact of the airport’s aviation activity which includes
future planned facilities development depicted in the FAA-approved Airport Layout
Plan. These noise contours are shown in Figure 13.
New Residential Development. New residential uses within the 60 db CNEL contour as
depicted in Figure 13, shall demonstrate consistency with maximum noise levels by
providing noise analysis, construction details, or other information deemed necessary by
the Community Development Director to verify conformance with maximum interior noise
levels.
2. Interior Noise Levels not to exceed 45db CNEL. For the following noise - sensitive land
uses, aircraft -related, interior noise levels shall not exceed 45dB CNEL (with windows
closed):
a. Living or sleeping areas of single or multi -family residences;
b. Hotels and motels;
c. Hospitals and nursing homes;
d. Place of Worship, meeting halls, and mortuaries; and
e. Schools, libraries and museums.
3. Interior Noise Levels not to Exceed 50 dB CNEL. For the following noise-sensitive land
uses, aircraft-related, interior noise levels shall not exceed 50dB CNEL (with windows
closed):
a. Office environments;
b. Eating and drinking establishments; and
c. Other miscellaneous commercial facilities.
17.57.080 Overflight Notice
A. Aircraft Overflight. Aircraft overflight standards are intended to provide overflight
notification for land uses near the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. It shall be the
responsibility of all owners of property offered for -sale or for -lease within the Airport Overlay
Zone (AOZ) to provide a disclosure prior to selling or leasing property in San Luis Obispo as
specified in the Airport Land Use Plan.
All discretionary actions shall include a condition of approval requiring all owners of property
offered for -sale or for -lease within the Airport Overlay Zone to provide the aforementioned
disclosure prior to selling or leasing property. For new residential land uses, the overflight
notification shall be recorded and appear with the property deed.
17.57.090 Open Land
A. Open land. Open land areas are intended to increase the chances of a pilot successfully
landing an aircraft in an emergency situation where they are unable to reach the runway.
The City has identified properties to contain open land areas as follows:
1. Airport Area Specific Plan: 250 acres on the Chevron property with two areas
specifically improved to meet ALUC standards; and a 300’ wide strip adjacent
PH2 - 285
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
21
to Buckley Road (24 acres) on the Avila Ranch site.
2. Margarita Area Specific Plan: two open land areas amid clustered
development.
3. Laguna Lake public park open area. Outside of AOZ but within the approach
surface.
4. Brughelli property easement south of Buckley Road.
5. San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area, west of Highway 101 and south of Dalidio
Drive.
6. City open space areas within the Airport Overlay Zone.
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 explore opportunities to incorporate the requirement for open land as
part of the discretionary approval process. Open land areas shall be consistent with ALUP
direction for size, orientation and topography.
PH2 - 286
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
22
SECTION 6. Figure Numbers of Title 17 Amended. With the addition of
PH2 - 287
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
23
Figure 13, Noise Contours, in Chapter 17.57 added herein, remaining subsequent
Figures of Tile 17 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code shall be renumbered
and referenced within text accordingly.
SECTION 7. Zoning Map Amended. The City of San Luis Obispo Zoning map
is hereby amended as shown in attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 8. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a
court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the
validity or enforcement of the remaining portions of this ordinance, or any other
provisions of the City’s rules and regulations. It is the City’s express intent that each
remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or
more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or
unenforceable.
SECTION 9. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final
passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This
ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the_______ day of _____, 2014, AND FINALLY
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the______ day
of______, 2014, on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
Mayor Jan Marx
Attest:
_______________________
Anthony J. Mejia, CMC
City Clerk
PH2 - 288
Ordinance No. #### (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5
GPI/ER 15-12
Airport Overlay Zone, Special Focus Areas Overlay Zone, Zoning Map
24
Approved as to Form:
_______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH2 - 289
Service Commercial
CAL
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
Proposed Land Use
0 0.20.1 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Service & Manufacturing to Tourist Commercial
Zoning: Service Commercial (C-S) to Tourist Commercial (C-T-SF)CAL
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
µ
Calle Joaquin
AT
T
5
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
PH2 - 290
office
low dens res
high dens res high dens res
genl retail
nbhd coml
com coml
open space
high dens res
office
public
BR
O
A
D
FOOTHILL
MURRAY
CH
O
R
R
O
MEINECKE
BOY
S
E
N
SA
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
N
C
H
O
R
R
O
N
BE
N
T
O
N
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
ROUGEOT
RAMONA
Proposed Land Use
0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial
Zoning: Neighborhood- Commercial (C-N-SF) toCommunity Commercial (C-C-SF)
BR
O
A
D
FOOTHILL
MURRAY
CH
O
R
R
O
MEINECKE
BOY
S
E
N
SAN
T
A
R
O
S
A
N
C
H
O
R
R
O
N
BE
N
T
O
N
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
ROUGEOT
RAMONA
µ
Foothill Blvd/Santa Rosa Area
AT
T
5
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
PH2 - 291
public
office
med dens res
low dens res
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
F
L
O
R
A
BISHO
P
LIZZIE
FI
X
L
I
N
I
SYDNE
Y
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
SI
E
R
R
A
W
I
L
D
I
N
G
ELLA
P
A
R
K
L
A
N
D
S
U
N
S
E
T
SMITH
S
K
Y
L
A
R
K
CECEL
I
A
WOODLA
N
D
IRIS
VIEWM
O
N
T
RICH E
L
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
CORON
A
Proposed Land Use
0 0.3 0.60.15 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Low Density Res to Public Facility
Zoning: Low-density Residential (R-1) to Public Facility (PF-SF)
GP: Low Density Res to Med Density Res
Zoning: Low-density Residential (R-1) toMed Density Res (R-2-SF)
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
F
L
O
R
A
BISHO
P
LIZZIE
FIXLINI
SYDNE
Y
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
SI
E
R
R
A
SMITH
CECEL
I
A
RICH E
L
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
µ
General Hospital
AT
T
5
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
PH2 - 292
open space
low dens res
tourist
int op sp
int op sp
serv man
public
med dens res
LOS
P
A
L
O
S
HIG
U
E
R
A
S
CAL
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
LOS
V
E
R
D
E
S
VIST
A
LI
N
D
A
MA
R
I
P
O
S
A
PER
L
A
E
L
M
I
R
A
D
O
R
CO
N
T
E
N
T
A
Proposed Land Use
0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Interim Open Space to Low Density Residential
Zoning: Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-10) to Low Density Residential (R-1-SF)
GP: Interim Open Space to Medium Density Residential
Zoning: Zoning: Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-20) to Medium Density Residential (R-2-SF)
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
LOS PALOS
HIG
U
E
R
A
S
LOS
V
E
R
D
E
S
CAL
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
EN
C
A
N
T
O
µ
LOVR Creekside Area
AT
T
5
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
PH2 - 293
Public Facility
V
I
C
E
N
T
E
GARCI
A
H
U
A
S
N
A
LI
M
A
P
E
R
E
I
R
A
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
SOLA
FROOM
R
A
N
C
H
CAYUC
O
S
PICO
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
Proposed Land Use
0 0.20.1 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Public to Park
Zoning: Public Facility (PF-SF)
GP: Public
Zoning: Public Facility (PF-SF) to Commercial Retail (C-R-SF)
GARCI
A
V
I
C
E
N
T
E
H
U
A
S
N
A
P
E
R
E
I
R
A
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
PICO
SOLA LIMA
CAYUC
O
S
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
µ
Pacific Beach
AT
T
5
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
PH2 - 294
serv man
int op sp
office
office
ELK
S
PRAD
O
H
I
G
U
E
R
A
S
HI
G
U
E
R
A
S
Proposed Land Use
0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Interim Open Space to Community Commercial
Zoning: Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-10) to Community Commercial (C-C-SF)
EL
K
S
PRAD
O
H
I
G
U
E
R
A
S
µ
Sunset/ Prado Area
AT
T
5
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
PH2 - 295
com coml
businesspark
B
R
O
A
D
TANK FAR
M
Proposed Land Use
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Business Park to Community Commercial
Zoning: Business Park (BP) toCommunity Commercial (C-C-SF)
B
R
O
A
D
TANK FAR
M
µ
Tank Farm/ Broad Street Area
AT
T
5
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
PH2 - 296
Low Density Residential
BISHOP
ELLA
BI
N
N
S
SI
E
R
R
A
F
L
O
R
E
N
C
E
H
E
L
E
N
A
GEORG
E
BU
S
H
N
E
L
L
R
U
T
H
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
IRIS
RACHEL
FLETCHER
PAULINE
KRISTY
H
E
N
R
Y
KENDRA
TRE
V
O
R
SYLVIA
BO
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
D
E
L
C
A
M
P
O
LE
O
N
A
Proposed Land Use
0 0.40.2 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Open Space
Zoning: Low-density Residential (R1) to Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-40)
BISHOP
ELLA
BI
N
N
S
SI
E
R
R
A
FLORENCE
H
E
L
E
N
A
BU
S
H
N
E
L
L
GEORG
E
RACHEL
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
H
E
N
R
Y
FLETCHER
LE
O
N
A
R
U
T
H
PAULINE
KRISTY
KENDRA
BO
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
D
E
L
C
A
M
P
O
TRE
V
O
R
SYLVIA
µ
Terrace Hill
AT
T
5
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
PH2 - 297
med dens res
serv man
low dens res
park
open space
nbhd comlpublic
med hi dens res
open space
com coml
public
office
low dens res
Proposed Land Use
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Existing Land Use
GP: Services & Manufacturing to Commercial Retail
Zoning: Service-Commercial (C-S) to Retail-Commercial (C-R-SF)
B
R
O
A
D
BISH
O
P
HIGH
LAWRENCE
LA
W
T
O
N
VI
C
T
O
R
I
A
UPHAM
R
O
C
K
V
I
E
W
MITCHELL
CAUDILL
WOODBRIDGE
SOUTH
Mc
M
I
L
L
A
N
STONERIDGE
GA
R
I
B
A
L
D
I
CH
O
R
R
O
EM
I
L
Y
ORCUTT
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
ST
O
R
Y
BRANCH SA
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
RA
C
H
E
L
ME
A
D
O
W
FLORENCE
PERKIN
S
FUNSTON
BLU
E
R
O
C
K
GA
I
L
CHURC
H
MAS
O
N
SWEEN
E
Y
SW
A
Z
E
Y
SI
E
R
R
A
L
A
D
E
R
A
MUTSU
H
I
T
O
ALPHO
N
S
O
CH
A
N
D
L
E
R
JENNIFER
PAULINE
MORRISON
SYLVIA
LAWRE
N
C
E
CAUDIL
L
µ
South Broad Street Corridor
AT
T
5
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
PH2 - 298
Attachment 6
Annotated comments from
Mayor Marx
PH2 - 299
Mayor Marx agenda correspondence 10-7-14 1
LAND USE ELEMENT
Proposal Response
Renew the Urban Forest: The City shall renew the urban forest, planning
plantings in light of global warming and drought cycles. The City shall plan
a long term tree planting program to beautify the city, mitigate increased
residential density, counter die off and to combat air pollution and global
warming.
Please see page 115 of Blue
Book and PC endorsed
modifications PH3-15
Urban Forest: The City shall update the Urban Forest master tree plan
and develop recommendations to renew and maintain a healthy urban
forest and plant more trees
Please see page 115 of Blue
Book and PC endorsed
modifications PH3-15
Homelessness: Implement comprehensive strategies to address
homelessness in our City in partnership with other entities. Encourage
existing, improved, and expanded services (including advocating to the
County and other organizations for delivery of case management, drug,
alcohol, and detoxification services, and mental health services), support
the establishment of a new homeless services center, and pursue good
neighbor, safety, and quality of life programs (including restrooms), using
technology as appropriate.
This policy is more
appropriate in Housing
Element update –
transmitted to Housing
Programs Manager for
review
Neighborhood Wellness: Continue and enhance neighborhood wellness
initiatives, continue to support proactive code enforcement, pursue a
residential rental inspection program; improve street cleanliness; increase
public safety enforcement, and support neighborhood led initiatives.
Council direction endorsed
PC recommendation for
Program 2.12 which
includes these items.
Long-Term Fiscal Health: Preservation of Essential Services Develop a
comprehensive strategy for preserving essential services, adequately
maintaining existing facilities and infrastructure, and protecting the City’s
fiscal health
Policy question. This is
financial policy rather than
a land use issue.
Open Space Committee: Term: 4 years, 5 members, one of which is a
Parks and Recreation Commissioner Staff support: Natural Resources
Director. Policy: The City shall establish an Open Space Advisory
Committee. NOTE: This is recommended in the Open Space and
Conservation Element. Appendix C: Management of Open Space Lands
from the existing Conservation and Open Space Element includes (item
15): “The City may form an Open Space Committee to advise staff on
open space acquisition and management.”
Appendix C to COSE
Conservation Guidelines
includes item #15: “The
city may form an Open
Space Committee to advise
staff on open space
acquisition and
management.”
Council may form new
advisory body at any time.
Open Space Overuse: Master Plans shall be updated to take into account
actual recreational use of open space areas and take measures to reduce
impacts of over use on the natural habitat and nearby neighborhoods,
which could include educational programs, rotating closure of trailheads,
establishment of new staging areas, evening ranger patrols, increased
fines for illegal use or and/or reduction of publicity regarding open space
More appropriate as part of
open space management
plans required by COSE
8.7.2 J.
ATTACHMENT 6
PH2 - 300
Mayor Marx agenda correspondence 10-7-14 2
areas which are over used.
Pedestrian Master Plan: Establish and implement a Pedestrian Master
Plan. Add policies promoting the installation of sidewalks and/or
pedestrian trails in areas of the city without sidewalks, but with high
pedestrian use.
DT Pedestrian Plan exists in
draft form and will trail
LUCE update.
Updated CE Policy 5.1.2
addresses areas outside the
Downtown and gives areas
with heaviest pedestrian
use priority in funding.
Rainwater harvesting: new development shall use methods to
facilitate rainwater percolation for roof areas and outdoor
hardscaped areas, and require project designs to minimize drainage
concentrations and impervious coverage.
Draft LUE policy 9.3.7E
includes collection and use
of site runoff and rainwater
harvesting.
Council also changed
“encourage” to “require”
for 6.4.5 Runoff Reduction
and Groundwater Recharge
to facilitate rainwater
percolation; and 6.4.6
Development
Requirements to minimize
impervious coverage.
New residential construction: new homes and neighborhoods
should be designed to minimize impacts and energy use, and
include layout for maximum solar gain, passive ventilation, roofs
oriented for solar and/or thermal installations, pervious paving,
onsite heat recovery/water recycling systems, with the goal of
becoming a "net zero" city for energy and water consumption.
Council direction endorsed
Sierra Club language for
9.3.7D Utilize plumbing
fixtures that conserve or
reuse water such as low
flow faucets or grey water
systems, and implement a
builder incentive program
that will encourage new
homes to be built with
onsite water/heat recycling
systems to help achieve the
goal of net zero water and
energy use.
Drinking fountains: restore broken drinking fountains and install
new ones in parks and in the Downtown, especially near alcohol
outlets.
This appears an operational
directive than a land use
policy.
Define “infill” to refer to new housing, and not to over crowd
established neighborhoods, which should be empowered to decide
the amount of density residents in those neighborhoods prefer.
A GP Glossary definition for
“Infill Housing” currently
exists, and is not proposed
to change. The Density
which may be allowed on a
particular infill lot is
dependent on the
underlying zoning and
ATTACHMENT 6
PH2 - 301
Mayor Marx agenda correspondence 10-7-14 3
General Plan designations
of the property. Concern
about delegation of
decision authority to
residential “vote” or
“support” and equal
protection of property
requirement to abide by
underlying general plan
designations and zoning
per state law. Other
policies provide measures
to ensure neighborhood
compatibility.
Page 6 3d paragraph: the county has changed its planning area, so we
should change the first sentence.
Council direction endorsed
changes to this language to
reflect updated planning
area.
Page 10-11 Contrary to PC recommendation, restore “Background to
1994 Land Use Element”
Council direction supported
this approach with
language to be italicized.
Page 23: Definition of High Density Residential (HDR) “This type of
development is appropriate in some locations outside of established R-1
and R-2 zones near Cal Poly, in the Downtown…(rest is OK)
Policy question
High-Density Residential
land use is implemented
through R-4 zoning which is
a distinct zone that could
not apply in the R-1 and R-2
zones.
1.12.1 Delete word “potable” in first line. (The city has a prohibition
on “wheeling” water, i.e. providing water outside of the url, since this
encourages sprawl)(See accompanying memo and supporting documents)
No provision of any water beyond the URL. If this sprawl inducing policy
is enacted, provision of water outside the URL should be restricted to
landscaping or agricultural use in declared drought conditions only and
shall not result in utility rate increases for city residents.
If “potable” is not deleted, the PC amendments at least narrow the scope.
Council direction endorsed
PC recommendation.
1.12.7 Open Space
Restore language on p 38 “1.12.7 E. Dalidio Area properties (generally
bounded by Highway 101, Madonna Road, and Los Osos Valley Road) not
yet annexed into the City shall dedicate land or easements for the
approximately one-half of each ownership that is to be preserved as open
space.”
Council discussed and
provided direction to
support PC
recommendation.
1.13 Costs of Growth Policy question
ATTACHMENT 6
PH2 - 302
Mayor Marx agenda correspondence 10-7-14 4
first sentence –keep
Second sentence: The City shall consider a range of options for financing
measures, so that new development pays it fair share of costs of new
services and facilities, which are required to serve the project and which
are reasonably related to the new growth attributable to the
development.
1.15.4 The City will continue to participate with monitor the County in
reviewing and providing input on County projects or general plan
amendments that have the potential to impact the City, the Greenbelt, or
be inconsistent with City policies. Significant issues will be referred to
the City Council.
Council endorsed with
revised language,
“significant issues will be
referred to the Planning
Commission and/or the City
Council.
2.1.1 The City shall assist residents to identify, designate and map
neighborhoods. The City shall work with residents to address
neighborhood specific issues, including enhancing a sense of place,
diversity and stability within neighborhoods. The City shall encourage
the neighborhoods to form Neighborhood Councils.
Neighborhood mapping
was completed.
Second part of proposed
change already exists in
2.1.2 Neighborhood Groups
2.1.6 Neighborhood Amenities Characteristics
The City shall promote livability, quiet enjoyment, and safety for all
residents.
Policy question.
2.1.1 Neighborhood Enhancement Density, Infill or Redevelopment
The City shall promote increased density or infill development in new
neighborhoods and on vacant sites which are essentially surrounded by
urban development and also in existing neighborhoods, if residents of
that neighborhood support such infill, redevelopment, rehabilitation or
adaptive reuse.
Policy question. Concern
about delegation of
decision authority to
residential “vote” or
“support” and equal
protection of property
requirement to abide by
underlying general plan
designations and zoning
per state law. Other
policies provide measures
to ensure neighborhood
compatibility.
NOTE: keep the present General Plan glossary definition of “infill”
No changes to glossary
definitions are proposed.
2.2.1 The City shall promote, where compatible with established
neighborhoods, a mix….” (rest is ok)
2.2.9 Compatible Development (page 43)
Restore word “scale” in the first sentence.
H. A mix of housing types, and a range of density within new
neighborhoods is generally desirable.
Council direction endorsed
PC recommendation.
2.5.1 Cal Poly
The City shall encourage Cal Poly to build housing on campus for all of its
students. On campus housing should be expanded at least as fast as
Policy question
ATTACHMENT 6
PH2 - 303
Mayor Marx agenda correspondence 10-7-14 5
enrollment increases.
2.5.4 Location
The City shall encourage the development of housing likely to attract
faculty and staff close to Cal Poly. The City shall encourage Cal Poly to
plan and implement incentive programs for faculty and staff to make it
attractive for them to occupy residential neighborhoods near the
University. The City shall work with Cal Poly to facilitate faculty and staff
owning or renting housing in adjacent neighborhoods.
Policy question
2.5.5 Fraternities and Sororities
The City shall work with Cal Poly to develop a proposal to locate
fraternities and sororities on campus for consideration by the CSU Board,
and facilitate its implementation. If locations on campus cannot be
provided, fraternities and sororities should be limited to high density
residential areas near campus, but not in established neighborhoods.
Conversion of existing off campus student dorm-type living complexes
to fraternities or sororities should be considered.
Policy question
2.12.1 Residential Densities
The City will evaluate alternatives to the current maximum number of
dwelling units per acre (based on bedroom count) and height, parking and
setback standards, to regulate residential building intensity, and bulk and
mass, outside of established neighborhoods
Policy question
3.5.7.12 The City shall regularly review the implementation of the
Economic Development Strategic Plan and other appropriate strategies
for business retention and expansion, with a focus on evaluating those
strategies to determine if they are actually providing head of household
jobs.
Council endorsed this
change
4.0 Downtown Residential
Downtown is a neighborhood. (rest is OK)
Policy question
4.0.1.1
Add a last sentence: The City shall encourage conversion of structures
originally built as housing, but subsequently used as offices, back to
residential uses.
Policy question
New Program: The City shall encourage the formation of a Downtown
neighborhood association.
Policy question
New Program: The City shall repair defunct drinking fountains and install
new ones throughout the Downtown and especially near drinking
establishments.
Policy question, but this
appears to be an
operational issue rather
than a land use one.
New Program: The City shall encourage volunteer groups, such as the
Urban Foresters and America in Bloom, to enhance and maintain the
Policy question
ATTACHMENT 6
PH2 - 304
Mayor Marx agenda correspondence 10-7-14 6
urban forest and landscaping features in the Downtown.
5.2.6 Performing Arts Center
The City, Cal Poly and the Foundation for the Performing Arts…
Staff noted this change and
will show correction in the
Compendium.
8.3.2.1
% of site: This defines the percent of each site dedicated to open space
(using the gross project site, unless General Plan policies or Council
decisions provide using the net project site instead.)
Majority Council direction
did not support the
proposed change.
8.3.2.4 Sp-2 Dalidio Specific Plan Area (page 104)
Restore original language:
e. “Preserve at least one-half of this signature working agricultural
landscape at the southern gateway to San Luis Obispo as it existed in
1994.” (quoting 8.8 in 1994 LUE) Maintain agricultural and open space
resources on site.
No off site mitigation, no cloverleaf. Eliminate footnote. Keep both
minimum 50% and 65.5 acres.
Performance Standards: Delete Footnote and asterisk. (counter to the PC
recommendation)
Housing at San Luis Ranch should be more dense, therefore reducing the
residential footprint.
Majority Council direction
did not support the
proposed change.
8.3.2.6 Avila Ranch. Eliminate the second sentence of the footnote.
Council direction supported
this 9-30-14.
8.3.3.1 Foothill & Santa Rosa
Chorro and Foothill: Do not straighten out north Chorro—leave it as it is
today. Include a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Santa Rosa from Boyson
to Mustang Village.
The concept of
straightening out North
Chorro was rejected earlier
in the process due to
potential neighborhood
impacts however additional
analysis should be done to
make sure accesses and
intersections operate as
efficiently as possible in
future conditions otherwise
intrusion into the
neighborhoods will occur.
Bicycle Pedestrian bridge
over Santa Rosa at Boysen
is included. Additional
analysis of circulation is
included.
8.3.3.2 Upper Monterey
f. second sentence “These types of facilities would not be
located on the east side of Monterey north of California Street, unless
adequate buffers and noise mitigation measures are required to protect
Majority Council direction
did not support changes
other than correction of
grammar.
ATTACHMENT 6
PH2 - 305
Mayor Marx agenda correspondence 10-7-14 7
the creek and the established neighborhood east of the creek. A
conference center in conjunction with a hotel is appropriate for this
area, but not a stand alone conference center. “
8.3.3.8 Sunset Drive In/Prado Road. Any use drawing substantial regional
traffic also depends on providing needed infrastructure at Prado Road,
extending Prado Road to connect with Madonna Road and realignment of
Elk’s Lane.
Council direction to include
this language 9-30-14.
9.3.3 and allow for CEQA streamlining Policy question
9.3.7 D. Collection and use site run off and rainwater harvesting in
landscape irrigation shall be encouraged.
Draft LUE policy 9.3.7E
includes collection and use
of site runoff and rainwater
harvesting.
Council also changed
“encourage” to “require”
for 6.4.5 Runoff Reduction
and Groundwater Recharge
to facilitate rainwater
percolation; and 6.4.6
Development
Requirements to minimize
impervious coverage.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Proposed change Response
The City shall implement closures to off and on ramps as recommended
by Cal Trans, where appropriate.
Policy question
1.7 1. Year should be 2035, not 2000 Correction noted.
NEW PROGRAM
4.1.2 Bike Share: Explore a bike share program within the city.
Work with Cal Poly to participate in this program or create their
own bike share program. (does this belong in Circulation)
Council direction endorsed
revised language:
4.1.2 Bike Share: The City
shall evaluate a bike share
program in coordination
with Cal Poly and other
educational institutions.
8.1.3 When requested by neighborhoods, the City shall analyze
residential streets for their livability with regards to safety, multi-modal
traffic noise, volumes and speed, as well as the amount of pedestrian
and bicycle traffic and potential excess of right of way pavement. (rest is
OK)
Council direction endorsed
revised language as follows:
The City shall analyze
residential streets for their
livability with regards to
safety, multi-modal traffic
noise, volumes and speed,
as well as the amount of
pedestrian and bicycle
traffic and potential excess
of right of way pavement.
ATTACHMENT 6
PH2 - 306
Mayor Marx agenda correspondence 10-7-14 8
\\chstore7\team\council agenda reports\2014\2014-10-21\luce adoption (johnson-murry)\ac_marx10-7-14_responses.docx
(rest is OK)
Page 34 figure 3. Add Neighborhoods near Cal Poly as Traffic
Management Areas.
Council direction endorsed
removal of graphic as
shown in draft CE
9.1.2
NOTE: Overpass without ramps should be the preferred alternative for
the next 20 years.
Council direction endorsed
proposed changes shown
below:
Table 5: Transportation
Projects
Prado Rd. Interchange:
Development of the San
Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Area
shall include a circulation
analysis of alternatives to a
full access interchange at
Prado Rd, an analysis of
compact interchange
designs that minimize
encroachment into open
space / ag. land, and
analysis of incremental
phasing of interchange
elements. (Agenda
Correspondence Table 5
#15)
13.1.1 Parking Management Plan
The City shall maintain and regularly update its Access and Parking
Management Plan, including parking demand reduction strategies (every
5 years) and consider emerging best practices…[rest is OK]
Council direction endorsed
addition of this language.
ATTACHMENT 6
PH2 - 307
Page intentionally left
blank.
PH2 - 308