HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-2014 PH2 Memo from CDD Director Johnson 2DO
Council Memorandum
Date:
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
October 20, 2014 COUNCIL MEETING: 10 10 201y
ITEM NO.: '1 H Z
Mayor and City Council
Derek Johnson, Community Development Director ? . I'VE
Katie Lichtig, City Manager OCT 2 0 2014
Response to Agenda Correspondence = - --
This agenda correspondence responds to issues raised in agenda correspondence from Dr. Tefft.
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide complete information to support Council's
deliberations and actions. Dr. Tefft provides commentary regarding three points; 1) exposure of
residents to undue noise and safety hazards, 2) potential adverse litigation and regulatory actions,
and 3) foreclosure of efforts to achieve consistency between the LUCE and the ALUP. Each
issue is discussed below.
a. Exposure of residents
The proposed LUCE was developed in consideration of the future aircraft operations, flight paths
for approach and departure, and noise forecasts shown in the Airport Master Plan. The LUCE
identifies two primary sites where a cautious approach may affect site design: Avila Ranch and
San Luis Ranch. Policy direction indicates that no residential uses will be supported within
10,000 feet from the end of the primary runway 11 (i.e. the runway that extends towards San
Luis Ranch). Dr. Tefft's correspondence only identifies the use restrictions assigned to Runway
7 (the runway that is to the east of Avila Ranch), which are appropriate to the limited use it
experiences (and is forecast to experience in the future).
The Airport Master Plan EIR fully evaluated noise impacts associated with forecasted aircraft
operations and found no significant impacts associated with noise. The only state -wide airport
noise standard is 65 dB CNEL for new residential construction and 45 dB CNEL for interior
noise as part of the building code. There is no recognized state or national standard for single -
event aircraft noise. The City's local noise standard is 60 dB CNEL (Noise Element and
Ordinance). The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) states (page 4 -12)
that "Noise generated by the operation of aircraft is primarily measured in terms of the
cumulative noise levels of all aircraft operations to, from, and around an airport. In California,
the cumulative noise level metric established by state regulations is the CNEL." In Chapter 4 of
the Handbook, it indicates that interior noise levels can be satisfied by standard construction
where exterior noise exposure is less than 60 -65 dB CNEL. The land use and zoning
designations in combination with the AOZ would limit residential development to areas of 60 dB
CNEL or less.
The Handbook indicates on page 4 -10 that application of single event peak noise criteria poses
difficulties in assigning significance. The Master Plan EIR technical appendix O provides
information related to "single noise events" (i.e. a single plane taking off or landing) for
10 -21 Agenda Correspondence - Tefft Response Page 2
informational purposes only and indicates they are not used to determine impact significance
(AMP EIR Appendix O, page 1). The appendix describes the maximum peak noise event but
compresses the approximate 10 seconds in duration of that event into a single second of time.
This type of measurement (called SEL) displays a typical aircraft noise event 5 -10 dB higher
than the maximum measurement of the same event. Dr. Tefft identifies the potential 85 dB SEL,
but fails to further describe that this contour is inflated to show compression of time and, as
shown in Figure 2 of the Airport Land Use Plan, is fully contained within the airport itself and on
the open space proposed for conservation as part of the Chevron project, not in areas proposed
for new residential development in the LUCE.
b. Potential adverse litigation
The ALUC's review of the Johnson Report was itself flawed and was responded to in
correspondence to the ALUC in June 2014. Letters from Caltrans Aeronautics and the ALUC in
response to the initial findings for overrule, prompted a revision in the City's approach to more
clearly identify where proposed action regarding overrule for land uses applied. This process
worked as intended by the Public Utilities Code and is part of the normal adjustment to findings
in response to comments.
The City's intent was never to usurp the ALUC's authority but rather to exercise its land use
authority as provided by PUC 21676(b) for land uses in certain areas and to document
compliance with the State Aeronautics Act through establishment of an Airport Overlay Zone as
recommended by the Handbook. The City responded to comments submitted by Caltrans and
the ALUC to more clearly identify intent and to adjust the mechanism by which the City will
comply with the State Aeronautics Act by referring to the adopted Airport Land Use Plan
(ALUP) policies but reflecting where land uses might deviate from those supported by the ALUP
through the overrule action. The area of overrule represents only 17% of the total area within the
boundary of the ALUP. The City's action is not a usurpation of the ALUC or its authority or
responsibility to adopt and administer an ALUP.
The attachments to the Overrule Resolution provided to Council do not represent a
"rehabilitation" of findings but rather clarify intent, document changes made in response to
Caltrans and ALUC comments, and more clearly identify how the City will comply with the
State Aeronautics Act under PUC 21670(a). The statute (PUC 21676(b)) specifies that Caltrans
and ALUC comments are advisory and requires the City to include the comments in the public
record of any final decision to overrule the Commission. Overrule action by the City is protected
as a jurisdiction's right to local land use control under PUC 21676(b) and this action is not taken
lightly. However, when this option is taken, no further referral is required for land uses
authorized by the overrule (PUC 21676.5(b)). For other land uses, general or specific plans or
re- zonings, it is clear, and clearly stated in the City's action, that subsequent referral to the
ALUC is required.
PUC 21678 states that an airport operator 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. The code does not specify that the
jurisdiction or future developer would be assigned this liability, and there is no case law from
which to draw conclusions to help clarify any liability issues.
10 -21 Agenda Correspondence — Tet t Response Page 3
c. Foreclosure of LUCE and ALUP update consistency
Dr. Tefft indicates the ALUP update is nearing conclusion of the ALUP update and that the City
should not take action on the LUCE but work with the ALUC to change the LUCE to be
consistent with the draft ALUP. He further states the City's action would harm the ability to
collaborate or to develop consistency between the plans. Since the ALUC released the draft
ALUP just last month in response to the City's transmittal of draft findings for overrule, it is not
accurate to state that the ALUP is "nearing conclusion." There has been no public input on the
draft before it was released a month ago, which was developed in meetings not open to the public
or with city staff. After cursory review of the draft ALUP, staff notes the draft is missing key
items, such as aircraft operations forecasts and associated noise contours, and a key definition of
"infill" development. Moreover, the plan proposes to expand safety areas over key areas
identified in the LUCE (i.e. Avila Ranch and San Luis Ranch). The issue of noise contours and
associated restrictions has been a point of technical disagreement for the last 2 '/Z years between
the City and the ALUC and it doesn't appear to be resolved as part of the update. In addition,
the ALUC has not completed its CEQA analysis.
Specific properties for which the ALUC has expressed concern (Avila Ranch and San Luis
Ranch) require subsequent referral to the ALUC. The City will work diligently with the ALUC
to address the marriage of policy direction in the LUCE update with that in the ALUP in place at
the time of referral. While Dr. Tefft indicates the Council action would make future
collaboration more difficult, most importantly, three ALUC members expressed a willingness to
work through issues in an open and collaborative manner with the City through a data -driven and
information- supported decision - making framework.
T: \Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014- 10- 21\LUCE Adoption (Johnson- Murry)\Agenda Correspondence \Word Docs\AC-
Johnson Tefftresponse.docx