HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-2014 ph2 pinardKremke, Kate
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 5:07 PM
To: Kremke, Kate
Subject: Fwd: Very Short Term Thinking
PH 2 10/21/14
Anthony J. Mejia, MMC
San Luis Obispo City Clerk
Sent via mobile device.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Marx, Jan" <jmarx(Oslocit�org>
Date: October 24, 2014 at 5:01:56 PM PDT
To: "Mejia, Anthony" <amejia(2sloc��org>
Subject: Fwd: Very Short Term Thinking
Agenda correspondence
Senl from nn Vanizon Wfieless,1(; LlC: Smarrphone
-- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - --
From: Peg Pinard
Date: 10/24/2014 3:17 PM (GMT- 08:00)
To: letters(?
thetribunenews.com
Cc: "Carpenter, Dan" , "Smith, Kathy" ,
, staft(a sloairport.com
Subject: Very Short Term Thinking
VERY SHORT TERM THINKING
R!:--- C' F' VED
OCT 2 4 2014
-TTY C,LFI� €�
AGENDA
DCRRESPQNDENCE
[n- ;_` ltem#
"Marx, Jan" , "Ashbaugh, John" , "Christianson, Carlyn"
One of the Airport Land Use Commission's main jobs is in maintaining a safety zone around the
airport. Take -offs and landings are the most dangerous times for planes and where accidents are
most likely to occur. We have seen accidents in these corridors even our own small local airport.
Thankfully, due to ALUC's setbacks for development, the planes were able to land in a field and
not on top of someone's house. These policies have been in place for decades and not allowing
dense development around the airport has been a mark of wisdom - not something to be
criticized.
Besides keeping those corridors available for emergencies, the existing policy of honoring the
safety zones the commission sets up around the airport also keeps the city from assuming
liability if a tragedy should occur. Deliberately overriding the commission's safety zones and
putting families and children in a known danger area can hardly be called "good
planning ". Rather, it's another example of a "private /public partnership" where the developer
makes the short-term profit but the residents of this city are left with all the liability.
San Luis Obispo relies quite heavily on the benefits of having that airport where it is and other
areas like Paso Robles and Santa Maria would love to have the business and support industries
that this airport generates. High tech industries can receive components and get their products to
market quickly because the airport is right there. It's no accident that we have been able to attract
these industries due, in large part, to the airport's accessibility. Start putting up more obstacles to
the airport's ability to operate and this city will be cutting its own economic throat - not to
mention the convenience to local passengers.
We have already seen airlines leave cities due to high levels of noise complaints and other
restrictions caused by encroaching development. Intensifying development ends up forcing
airlines to make steep, sharp turns to avoid `sensitive' areas and that puts everyone in danger.
Thanks to Kathy Smith for a very well reasoned analysis for her vote and to Dan Carpenter for
not succumbing to Ashbaugh's very inappropriate comments. With alternative airports so close
by (that have longer, more accommodating runways and the pressures they keep putting on the
airlines to locate in their cities) why would the City of San Luis Obispo endanger the
convenience and economic impact of having its own local airport? Why would any city
deliberately choose to do this to itself? Talk about short- sighted thinking!
Peg Pinard
Former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
and Former Pilot