HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-2014 PH1 TefftCOUNCIL MEETING: ( o c`t Z+u 1-1
ITEM NO.
Christian, Kevin
From: Mejia, Anthony _
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Christian, Kevin
Subject: FW: Proposed Airport Overlay Zone DEC U 8 2014
CLERK
Agenda Correspondence for PH 1 12/09/2014.
Anthony J. Mejia, MMC i City Clerk
(aty of say) 1(118 omspo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
tel 805.781 -71,02
From: Dr. Robert Tefft [mailto:tb30486 @aim.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 11:13 AM
To: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Proposed Airport Overlay Zone
Mr. Mejia...
The following is the text of an email sent to Councilman Rivoire on December 5. In the interest of
public discourse, I would request that it be distributed to other Council members, as well, and added
to the posted public comment on this item.
Councilman Rivoire...
I would like to say, first of all, that I do realize and sympathize with the enormous challenge that is
facing you during this week. The issue of airport land use planning is extraordinarily complex and the
task of rapidly coming "up to speed" on a planning process that has been ongoing for the past 12
years is daunting. The job that you face is also complicated by the fact that City Staff and some
members of the Council appear uninterested in reaching concensus, but appear instead to relish the
prospect of confronting and potentially overriding the ALUC. I believe that Ms. Christiansen indicated
at the December 2 meeting that it has been her intent to proceed with an override for at least the past
two years. In this climate, unfortunately, your efforts to digest and understand the issues involved in
planning for appropriate land uses in the airport vicinity may be compounded by the reality that much
of the information put before you will be highly biased, selectively presented, or simply
inaccurate... more propaganda than useful. It is sad that the situation seems to have progressed so
far beyond the bounds of rational discourse that elected officials of the City feel compelled to engage
in the personal denigration of a private citizen under the color of office.
It is simply not possible for me to address all of the relevant issues during the three minutes allotted
during the public comment period, but I will attempt to provide in this email, as much of the relevant
information as I can. I will also attempt to avoid repeating information that you have likely already
received, but will try to provide some new insights.
Safety Issues and Consistency with the CALUPH
At the most recent Council meeting, City Staff alleged that the Airport Land Use Plan is
"unscientific ". This allegation is simply untrue. The Airport Land Use Commission has meticulously
analyzed the accident location database developed by the Institute of Transportation Studies at the
University of California, Berkeley )presented in Appendix E of the 2011 California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook [CALUPH]) and has applied this database to the San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport (SBP). Highlights of this data include:
• Statistically, the greatest percentage of accidents at SBP (30 %) will occur in Safety Area S1 b,
followed by the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) at 19 %, Zone 2 at 11 %, Zone 1 c at 9 %, and Zone 1 a
at 5 %.
• When the area of each safety area is taken into account, the likelihood of an aircraft accident at
any given spot follows the progression RPZ >Zone 1 a >Zone 1 b >Zone 1 c >Zone 2.
I would point out that this level of technical analysis is, in fact, extraordinary and is found in almost no
other airport land use plan in the state.
In contrast, the proposed Airport Overlay Area (AOA) contains no data on airport accident risk. A
brief consideration of the provisions of this document, however, reveal the lack of consistency and
logic in its provisions. The AOA designates (as does the ALUP) five areas of aviation safety risk
(RPZ, Zone S -1 a, Zone S -1 b, Zone S -1 c, and Zone2, in descending order of risk). Although the AOA
documents a greater risk level in Zones S -1 b and S -1 c than in Zone 2, it contains no provisions to
mitigate the higher risk levels. This is akin to identifying the fact that children routinely use a
particular crosswalk on their way to school, but setting the speed limit at 65 mph anyway.
The recent revisions that have been made to the AOA have also rendered the document
inconsistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (and, by extension, with the
State Aeronautics Act). For example, the generic state safety zone known as the Inner Turning Zone
is part of ALUP Safety Zone S -1 b. The State Handbook indicates that, in a suburban environment,
residential density in the Inner Turning Zone should be limited to no more than one dwelling unit per
2 -5 acres and that non - residential intensity of use should not exceed 70 -100 persons per acre. In
contrast, the proposed AOA has no limitations on residential or non - residential density in this area.
Noise Issues
The draft LUCE sets the maximum noise level for development of new residential and other noise -
sensitive land uses at 60 db CNEL. In contrast, the SLO Noise Ordinance establishes the maximum
level of single -event exterior noise exposure for residential uses at 75 dB, irrespective of the duration
of the noise. These two provisions are inconsistent with one another. During preparation of the EIR
for the current Airport Master Plan (2005), aviation - related noise was physically monitored at five sites
around the airport. The CNEL levels at these sites ranged from 46.5 to 54.9 dB. Despite the fact that
CNEL levels were well below those that would be allowed by the proposed LUCE, single noise events
exceeding 75 dB (i.e., illegal under the City's noise ordinance) were recorded at 4 of the 5
sites. Clearly, the incidence and severity of excessive single -event noise will be much greater at the
60 dB noise contour.
Consequences of an Override
You are, no doubt, aware of and have considered the potential for lawsuits to overturn any potential
City override, liability issues in the event of an aircraft accident, the potential need for multiple
ongoing overrides regarding specific plans and zoning changes, and the looming spectre of a
referendum. These are very important, but I will not belabor these issues here. What I would like to
discuss a bit is the possibility that the City may be required to refer all future building permits to the
ALUP for consistency determination, as neither your Staff nor Nick Johnson seem to quite "get" this
point. The State Aeronautics Act requires that, if an ALUC determines that a local action (i.e., LUCE)
is inconsistent with the ALUP, the local agency (i.e., the City) must either revise its action or override
the ALUC based upon findings that the local agency's plan is consistent with the purposes of
the State Aeronautics Act. If the local aency does neither, it may be required to submit all future
actions (including individual permits) to the ALUC. The California Department has determined that
the findings submitted by the City are legally insufficient to support an override and that any override
based upon these findings would be invalid. If this opinion is supported in court, the City would be in
the position of neither having revised its plan nor enacted a valid override and, thus, would be
required to submit all future actions to the ALUC.
Ripeness of Council Action
Regardless of the various pro and con arguments for the LUCE and AOA, the fact is that there does
not actually exist an ALUC determination of inconsistency to override. The documents currently
before the City are substantially different from those referred to the ALUC. Specifically, there have
been massive changes to the size and shape of the airport safety zones and to the policies that apply
within each zone. These are not minor modifications and the current LUCE and AOA are not the
plans that the ALUC previously reviewed. Under the provisions of the State Aeronautics Act,
therefore, the current general plan and zoning code amendments must be referred to the ALUC for a
consistency determination prior to adoption by the City.
As I have noted, the issues for your consideration are both massive and complex. I would be more
than happy to meet with you in person at your convenience, if that would be useful to you. It would, in
my opinion, be ideal if the City Council were to schedule one or more joint study sessions with the
ALUC, so that all of the unresolved issues could be fully aired and discussed.
I have no doubt that you will be under tremendous political pressure to vote for the override next
week. I do hope that you will have the time and opportunity to talk to all stakeholders and to advocate
for a prudent course forward.
Thank you for your consideration—
Bob Tefft