HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-2014 ph2 ronayKremke, Kate
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 12:08 PM
To: Kremke, Kate
Subject: FW: SLO Airport ALUC override -- Please do NOT override
PH2 10/21/14
Anthony J. Mejia, MMC I City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
tel 1 805.781.7102
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Thomas Ronay [mailto:tronay @charter.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 11:31 AM
To: forbesl40 @Rmaii.com
Cc: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan;
Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony; Kevin Bumen
Subject: Re: SLO Airport ALUC override -- Please do NOT override
Thank you Bert for the article and timely reminder of the lasting legacy of airport encroachment on any community by
those that would allow it. Noise complaints, lawsuits and increased risk to life and property are the only and inevitable
outcome of such a decision.
Consider also the identical precedence to Palo Alto and San Carlos at other communities including Santa Ana /John
Wayne airport, all the San Diego airports, Inland Empire airports; and closer to home Monterey, Santa Monica and Santa
Barbara Airports. Their efforts to mitigate noise and safety. after the fact, have only shifted the problem to surrounding
unhappy neighbors.
A wide and rational preemptive space around any airport is the only solution to avoid a lasting legacy of misery. I hope
that San Luis Obispo will again lead the way with innovative thinking and atypical decision making. The only compatible
use that history and precedence supports as effective, lasting, and irrefutable is OPEN SPACE. San Luis Obispo has
always been a leader in this principle, and it should not be forgotten.
I am sure there are many in the aviation community who would offer to help decision makers understand the approach
and departure issues unique to this airport due to our surrounding geography. I am confident that such experience
would convince them that there are no alternatives to already marginally safe flight paths available to aircraft.
Kind regards,
Thomas Ronay, M.D,
On Oct 30, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Bert Forbes wrote:
> Dear City Council and staff,
> Before you reconsider overriding the Airport Land Use Commission, please read the attached copy from the Palo Alto
Weekly about the noise issues and the large public outcry about it at the Palo Alto City Council.
> While SLO doesn't have the airliner traffic that is the main point of the article, the side bar "Living under the belly of a
'beast "' on Surf Air is much more directly applicable to SLO and our commuter airline traffic. The issue will only get
worse if you surround the airport with houses.
> Note that the Surf Air complaints are about "it's often lower than 1500 feet" and that's higher than what the traffic
areas above your override area would be. You're asking for community trouble and constant problems for the airport.
The Surf Air complaints are from Palo Alto, which is quite a ways south of the San Carlos airport where those aircraft
take off and land, not right next door like your proposed housing.
> The current and future city councils will have to bear the brunt of the community's complaints. I strongly urge you to
take Robert Teftt up on his offer to negotiate that appeared in today's Tribune.
> Thanks,
> Bert Forbes
> <PA Weekly article.pdf>