HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-2014 PH1 Tefft 2Christian, Kevin
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 11:17 AM
To: Christian, Kevin
Subject: FW: Additional Override Information
Additional Agenda Correspondence from Dr. Tefft for 12/09/2014 PH 1.
Anthony J. Mejia, MMC I City Clerk
GI(..! Of Sall III IS ObISt)0
990 Palm Street
Sail Luis Obispo, CA 934.01
tel 805.781.71 -02
From: Dr. Robert Tefft [mailto:tb30486 @aim.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 11 :16 AM
To: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Additional Override Information
Mr. Mejia...
COUNCIL MEETING: k-Zl Oq Fwk-i
ITEM NO.:�ar
,.. J IED
DEC 0 8 2014
The following is the text of a second email sent to Councilman Rivoire on December 6. In the interest
of public discourse, I would also request that this message distributed to other Council members and
added to the public record on this item.
Councilman Rivoire....
One additional topic that should be clarified before you make a decision as to how you will vote next
Tuesday is the issue of communication between City Staff and the ALUC. At the most recent Council
meeting, staff indicated that they had met with the ALUC on numerous occasions, but that the ALUC
was unresponsive. This is, at best, a half- truth.
City Staff and their aviation consultant (Nick Johnson) approached the Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) with a proposal that the ALUC revise the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) in a manner that
would adopt the generic safety zones that are depicted in the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook (CALUPH) without modification. The ALUC informed City Staff that, under the
requirements of the State Aeronautics Act, we are prohibited from adopting the CALUPH generic
zones, but are required to adjust those zones for factors that are specific to the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport (SBP), including (but not limited to) instrument approaches not aligned with
runways, high terrain in the vicinity of the airport, existing noise - sensitive land uses in the airport
environment, and flight training activities. The City failed to respond to this feedback, but continued to
pressure the ALUC to adopt the unmodified CALUPH safety zones. The City's insistence on this
abated only after the Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation notified
the City that the ALUC's modification of the generic CALUPH safety zones was entirely justified and
reasonable and in complete compliance with the State Handbook and the State Aeronautics Act.
In contrast to the City's very aggressive engagement of the ALUC on the topic of amending the
Airport Land Use Plan, City Staff never discussed with the ALUC the proposed Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE). At no time (despite repeated requests) did the City present to the ALUC
its goals for expanded residential development around the airport or engage the ALUC in a
discussion as to how those goals could be met without creating incompatibilities between desired
development and current and future airport operations. City Staff consistently approached the ALUC
with a pre- determined agenda to modify the ALUP in a manner that was inconsistent with State law,
while avoiding any meaningful discussion of how the both the ALUP and the LUCE might be adjusted
to achieve consistency.
The bottom line here is that, while City Staff did, in fact, meet on many occasions with the ALUC over
the past two years, they have NEVER discussed with the ALUC the anticipated provisions of the
emerging LUCE, nor did City Staff EVER attempt to arrive at any concensus development plan
that would have respected the goals of both the City and the ALUCt.
Because of Planning Staff's failure to appropriately consult with the ALUC, you are now placed in the
position of having to support or reject a draft proposed LUCE that is far from optimal for the citizens of
the City of San Luis Obispo. Proposed residential development in the San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Area
and the Avila Ranch Area, for example, consists of approximately 85% single - family detached
dwellings. This development pattern optimizes the profit potential for the developers that have
donated more than $90,000 to the City's employment of Johnson Aviation, but it is extremely poor in
providing affordable -by- design housing, a compact urban form for the city, or a development form that
can economically incorporate the crash - resistant design elements and noise insulation that would be
needed to ensure the safety and peace of mind of residents.
As I stated in my previous email, I do understand that you are under tremendous pressure to vote in
favor of the override next Tuesday. The Marx - Chritiansen- Ashbaugh coalition seems to have decided
that it is necessary for the City of San Luis Obispo to declare war on the Airport Land Use
Commission and on the California Department of Transportation. I can only hope that you will have
the wisdom and the courage to recognize that this course of action will inevitably embroil the City in
an interminable and unproductive series of legal and administrative tangles. I have no doubt that, in
the absence of an override, the current ALUC would be more than willing to assist the City in
developing a LUCE that could meet the City's housing needs without exposing the citizens of SLO to
injurious noise and safety hazards. There can be no doubt that the ALUC is a legitimate stakeholder
in the LUCE development process, and the City has a responsibility to engage in a legitimate, honest,
and authentic dialog with this body.
Because of the current make -up of the City Council, this decision just happens to fall on you ... Do you
want to override and set the City on a course of prolonged litigation, possible referendum, and
reduced eligibility for future CalTrans grant funds, or do you want to tell your staff that they need to do
their jobs ... to speak honestly and openly with the ALUC and come up with an alternative that will
actually provide affordable -by- design housing, preserve SLO's compact urban form, and protect the
City's residents from excessive and unnecessary airport noise and safety impacts?
Again, I appreciate your time and your consideration of these remarks.
Robert G. Tefft, MD