Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/2001, B 1 - LAND USE ISSUES INVOLVING THE SLO COUNTY AIRPORT 1 councilL M-6-Dac Sept. 10,01 ac,Endanepont D.Numb--g / CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O I//� FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directd`?,)� Prepared By: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: LAND USE ISSUES INVOLVING THE SLO COUNTY AIRPORT CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Appoint a Council subcommittee of two members to form a working group with a subcommittee of the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and with staff, to identify land uses for the Airport vicinity that are acceptable to both agencies (Councilmembers Marx and Schwartz have offered to serve as the subcommittee). 2. Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the ALUC inviting their participation in this process. 3. Give direction to the Council subcommittee and staff to pursue land-use alternatives that are consistent, so far as possible, with the City's General Plan, the adopted Airport Land Use Plan, and the State Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and to report back to the City Council within 90 days. REPORT IN BRIEF Adopted and proposed plans of the City and of the independent Airport Land Use Commission are based on different visions for the future of the Airport vicinity. State law charges the Airport Land Use Commission with assuring that land uses near the Airport are compatible with Airport operations. By State mandate and past City policy choices, the City also plans to insure that land uses near the Airport are compatible with the Airport. However, State law and City policy also direct the City to plan for more housing. The City's and the Commission's differing scopes for planning result in fundamentally different land-use policies, mainly for the Margarita Area. Much of the City's future housing has been planned in the vicinity of the Airport,but in locations the City believed would be compatible with flight patterns. The City's planning was based on cooperation with the Airport Land Use Commission's staff, which had prepared a draft update to the 1979 Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Recently, the Commission has become more concerned about how close planned residential development is to the Airport. This led the Commission to reject their staff's proposed ALUP update in 1999, which had been the basis for the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan. The Airport Land Use Commission subsequently determined that the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan was not compatible with the Airport. The Airport Land Use Commission's determinations are supposed to be based on its adopted 1979 ALUP. The Commission has proposed amendments to its plan, as an interim step toward preparing and adopting an entirely new plan in a few years. The City needs to make its plans conform to the Airport Land Use Commission's evolving policies, or to override the Commission. An override must be based on acceptable criteria for noise exposure and safety. Council Agenda Report—Airport Land Use Planning Page 2 The range of available planning criteria allows different approaches for completing the Margarita Area Specific Plan. In the 420-acre Margarita Area, up to 1,200 dwellings would have been allowed under the draft Airport Land Use Plan update that existed when the Margarita Area Specific Plan was being drafted. Following the adopted (1979) Airport Land Use Plan would allow about 800 dwellings. Following that plan and the current State airport safety guidelines would result in about 600 dwellings. The most recent Airport Land Use Commission direction apparently would allow about ten dwellings, based mainly on a desire to avoid noise complaints. Changing the residential capacity and the land-use layout of the Margarita Area has significant consequences for jobs-housing balance, transportation, parks, schools, and financing public facilities. Consistency with adopted noise and safety criteria is a sound basis for an override. While the Airport Land Use Commission has not been enthusiastic about seeking what could be described as a compromise, a cooperative modification of both agencies' plans would be preferable to an override of the Commission. Staff, therefore, recommends one more try for a dialog between the City and the Commission, and requests Council direction before redrafting the Margarita Area Specific Plan. DISCUSSION Situation The City must resolve several potentially competing demands that involve land use, which are focused on the southern part of the community: • Safety for aircraft occupants and those on the ground, in the Airport vicinity; • Additional housing, particularly dwellings that will be affordable to young families and those working in the area; • Acceptable levels of noise exposure from aircraft operations, including noise from aircraft combined with noise from other sources; • Acceptable design standards and levels of service for commercial and industrial development occurring in the area that has been under County jurisdiction; • Protection of open space outside the designated urban reserve line, and containing especially valuable natural features within the urban area. Land-use choices in turn have consequences for transportation (energy use, air quality, and the location and capacity of roads), the City's costs and revenues, and the location of public facilities such as parks and schools. To implement the General Plan that was last comprehensively revised in 1994, the City is preparing specific plans for three areas that contain nearly all the undeveloped land within the urban reserve: Margarita Area, Airport Area, and Orcutt Area (Vicinity Map, Attachment#1). • The draft Airport Area Specific Plan and environmental impact report (EIR) are about to be published, leading to Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Some revisions /-2 Council Agenda Report—Airport Land Use Planning Page 3 to the in-progress draft have been made to reflect the evolving ALUC policies. More: probably will be needed, but staff decided not to further delay this effort in an attempt to anticipate ALUC actions. • Publication of the hearing draft Margarita Area Specific Plan has been delayed, to allow resolution of airport compatibility issues. The draft specific plan, endorsed by the City Council in 1998 with some minor changes as the project description for environmental review, was consistent with the draft ALUP update in progress at that time. The 1998 draft specific plan represented several years' work by property owners, consultants, and staff. In line with the General Plan, it aimed for a wide range of housing types, with an emphasis on modest dwellings, and a strong sense of place with neighborhood character. Eliminating the proposed higher density dwellings, mixed-use "main street" feature, and elementary school would be substantial sacrifices toward achieving airport compatibility. It will be a challenge to devise an alternative that goes beyond a conventional low-density subdivision. • Consultants are working on a revised draft of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, which Council will be asked to endorse before proceeding with an EIR for that plan. While the City has been working on these specific plans, the independent, county-level Airport Land Use Commission has proposed changes to its Airport Land Use Plan,which the ALUC uses to make its mandated determinations of airport compatibility. Both the City's and the ALUC's objectives are based on practical needs and on the directives of State law. State law, however, does not dictate a particular land-use pattern. Ultimately, optimizing pursuit of the various objectives is a matter of Council judgment. The Airport Land Use Plan The ALUP's objective is maximum compatibility between land use and the noise and safety conditions resulting from current and projected Airport operations. The ALUC is charged with preparing and maintaining this plan, and with determining whether city and county general plan amendments, specific plans, and rezonings are consistent with the ALUP. The City must refer those types of planning proposals to the ALUC before acting on them. Also, after the ALUC amends its ALUP and transmits the new version to the City, the City has 180 days to amend its plans so they conform. For the City to override an ALUC determination of inconsistency or to adopt a plan that does not follow the ALUP, the City Council must approve the action by a two- thirds vote (four of five members) and make certain findings. (Public Utilities Code sections 21670 through 21679.5, and Government Code section 65302.3, in Council reading file.) The current ALUP was adopted in 1973, and had some minor amendments in the late 1970's (Map Attachment #2). Several years ago, the ALUC began the process of updating its plan. The City's 1994 General Plan update was consistent with the draft ALUP in progress at that time. That draft ALUP would have accommodated the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan that was /- 3 Council Agenda Report—Airport Land Use Planning Page 4 endorsed by the City Council in 1998. However, the ALUC rejected the previous draft ALUP prepared by County staff,and in September 2000 prepared anew draft. The new draft differs from the adopted plan mainly by further restricting residential development in the southern part of the urban reserve. If adopted, the new draft ALUP apparently would eliminate urban residential use in the Margarita Area and the residentially designated part of the Dalidio property, and reduce the residential capacity of the Orcutt Area—"apparently, " because the new draft contains`no maps showing where its policies would apply, and the ALUC has not yet prepared separate maps as part of the required environmental evaluation. Land-use Options In May 2001 the ALUC formally determined that the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan is incompatible with the adopted ALUP. This was expected, because the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan had been prepared to be consistent with the draft ALUP that the ALUC rejected in 2000. Complying with the adopted (1979) ALUP would require reducing the maximum residential capacity of the Margarita Area from 1,200 to about 800 dwellings. The 800-dwelling capacity follows from City staffs interpretation. There is a statement in the ALUC's determination implying that the ALUC used its proposed, much more restrictive policies to evaluate uses that its adopted plan shows as conditionally allowed. The ALUC has not responded to questions on this interpretation. However, it is clear that the adopted ALUP would allow residential uses in a smaller area and would allow lower densities than the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan last reviewed by the City Council (in 1998). The adopted ALUP does not accommodate the high-density, mixed-.use "main street" feature and many of the apartments and small-lot houses, which were key "smart-growth" features intended to enhance affordability and sustainable transportation. Even if the City revises the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan to comply with its interpretation of the adopted ALUP, the City would soon need to respond to pending amendments of the ALUP. Complying with the proposed ALUP amendments would essentially eliminate urban residential use from the Margarita Area. Substituting commercial or industrial uses in areas previously designated residential would further exacerbate the excess of jobs over housing in San Luis Obispo. In addition to the pending amendments, the ALUC has proposed preparation of a comprehensive revision of the ALUP. Based on statements from ALUC members, staff expects the comprehensive revision to enlarge the Airport compatibility planning area and to further restrict residential use. Staff believes the ALUC's current direction goes beyond what is required under State law and guidelines. If the ALUC maintains this direction, a City override of ALUC actions will be needed to maintain significant residential capacity in the Margarita Area and other developable areas in the southern part of the community. An override of the ALUC is not to be taken lightly. The California Public Utilities Code, in addition to the 4/5ths Council vote requirement; says the City would need to find that its action passes the following tests. �_ 1 Council Agenda Report—Airport Land Use Planning Page 5 • Provides for the orderly development of the Airport and the surrounding area, to promote the objectives of the California airport noise standards, and to prevent new noise and safety problems; • Protects the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of the Airport and minimizing public exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. The City's General Plan also says development should be compatible with the Airport and consistent with the ALUP, by way of eight policies in five elements (Attachment #6). General Plan amendments would be recommended, to enable the City to use discretion in determining whether,in all cases,following the Airport Land Use Plan is in the best overall interest of city residents. The following sections on noise .and safety discuss alternatives to the ALUC's criteria, which appear to exceed State requirements and result in unnecessary restrictions on much of our needed future housing supply. Noise Considerations The City has adopted noise exposure standards in its General Plan, in conformance with State requirements and guidelines. The State provisions give some latitude in setting numerical limits. According to the City's General Plan Noise Element, 60 decibels (on the"day-night weighted"or the "community noise equivalent level" average) is acceptable for residences, schools, and neighborhood parks..Using 60 decibels makes the residentially designated parts of the Margarita area acceptable in terms of aircraft noise exposure. Various Federal and State rules set the acceptable maximum noise exposure for urban residential land at 60 or 65 decibels, and the State Airport Land Use Planning Handbook suggests 60 decibels is "suitable for airports in suburban settings." The ALUC wants to use 55 decibels as the threshold, which the Handbook suggests is "suitable for airports in quiet, rural locations." Using 55 decibels would make smaller the part of the Margarita Area that could be designated for residential use. (Map Attachment#3 shows noise contours.) In addition, the ALUC has had prepared noise contours that extend farther into the Margarita Area than contours with the same numerical values as shown in the City's Noise Element. Not all residents are equally affected by noise from different sources. Aircraft noise in particular is more annoying than other types of noise to some people. Despite requirements for notification, disclosure, and avigation easements, some residents can be expected to.complain about aircraft operations. This is a key concern of the Airport. The proposed ALUP amendment contains a provision that residential development at any location similar to a location that has been a.source of aircraft noise complaints would be incompatible with the Airport. This policy could rule out much of the San Luis Obispo area, because complaints have been received from many locations, including places that are several miles from the Airport. The ALUC has no authority over Airport operations. The Airport is operated by the County. County Airport management and the ALUC are both concerned, based on complaints from area residents, that additional residential development in the Airport vicinity will lead to additional complaints and calls for further restrictions on Airport operations. These are legitimate concerns that City plans and project approvals must address. However, the noise standards adopted by the Council Agenda Report—Airport Land Use Planning Page 6 City and by the County, and published by various State and Federal agencies, provide a sound basis for overriding the ALUC on the aspect of noise exposure, if the ALUC continues to hold its current position. In contracting with the City to provide needed water and sewer service for the Airport, the County agreed to manage commercial aircraft operations to comply with the City's noise policies. Safety Considerations As with noise, setting acceptable thresholds for safety is not a matter of simply applying a universally accepted rule. The City's proposed specific plans adequately address the safety of aircraft in flight. The land- use designations and development standards proposed for the Airport vicinity would not allow structures to extend into the "imaginary surfaces" set by the Federal Aviation Administration to protect airspace. (The tops of the South Hills, which form the northern boundary of the Margarita Area and which are designated Open Space, do extend into the imaginary surface, and the telecommunications antennas just outside the Margarita Area have penetrated those surfaces.) There would be no waste dumps or significant wetlands enlargement that would attract more birds and lead to more bird strikes. There would be standards to prevent interference due to smoke, radio transmissions, or reflected and generated light. The remaining concern is safety of people on the ground in the event of a forced landing or a crash, and the survivability of such an event for people in the aircraft. Designation of safety zones is based on the relative frequency and altitude of overflights, and the locations of crashes that have occurred near airports. Federal standards mandate clear zones near the runway ends, where no buildings are allowed. The County owns most of the clear zones at the northwest side of the Airport; they make no difference for the Margarita Area and are accommodated by the Airport Area Specific Plan. There are no definite standards for other safety zones. The Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, 1993) shows safety zones that differ from the compatibility zones in the adopted ALUP, and from the areas that apparently would be subject to the proposed ALUP policies. The Handbook's zones can be characterized as more restrictive than the adopted (1979) ALUP zones, but less restrictive than the proposed ALUP policies. (Map Attachment #4 shows the Handbook safety zones.) While the Handbook contains a disclaimer that the illustrated zones "do not represent standards or recommendations," they are an objective source of information from a party other than the City or the ALUC. Complying with the Handbook's safety guidelines, along with the adopted ALUP, would provide a sound basis for overriding the ALUC on matters of safety, if as expected the ALUC takes the position that there should be no housing on the Dalidio property or in the Margarita Area, and less housing than now planned for the Orcutt Area. Following both the adopted ALUP and the Handbook would reduce the Margarita Area's residential capacity by half, to about 600 dwellings, while eliminating a school site. Complying with the adopted ALUP and the Handbook would not require reduced residential capacity on the Dalidio property or in the Orcutt Area. Complying with just the Handbook would result in a Margarita Area capacity somewhere between 600 and 800 dwellings. Council Agenda Report—Airport Land Use Planning Page 7 Housing Capacity Issues At least for the next several years, San Luis Obispo housing will continue to be in demand due to increasing Cal Poly enrollment, a greater number of jobs than dwellings in the city; and the area's desirability for self-employed people and retirees. The City is under increasing pressure from the State to plan for even more additional housing than called for by the adopted General Plan. Reducing the amount of land available for residential development will exacerbate the shortage of housing in the city. If the Margarita Area is to have substantially fewer dwellings to achieve airport compatibility, and the present urban-area residential capacity is to be maintained, the City will need to do one or more of the following: • For expansion areas such as Orcutt, designate higher densities on undeveloped land that is already designated for residential use. • Designate higher densities for largely developed areas. This would encourage more dwellings to be built on the few remaining vacant sites, addition of dwellings to some partly developed sites, and the replacement of some existing dwellings with higher density development. This is expected to raise issues of neighborhood compatibility. There is also a question of the actual effect of allowing higher densities. For example, in the downtown core, buildings up to 50 feet tall and densities of 36 two-bedroom dwellings per acre(up to 72 studio dwellings per acre) are already allowed, but there has been no new residential construction there. • Replace office, commercial, or industrial designations with residential designations.. Some possibilities are shown on Map Attachment #5. The office designation and several commercial designations already allow residential use, though residential or mixed-use developments in nonresidential zones are not common. There are few suitably located, vacant parcels that would accommodate substantial numbers of dwellings. However, projects such as Villa Rosa show the potential for this type of change in designation. One area that could be re-examined is along Santa Barbara Avenue and Broad Street. • Replace Suburban Residential or Rural Residential designations with urban residential designations, for areas such as the Kuden-Perozzi Tract, Hansen Lane, Bear Valley Estates, or O'Connor Way (Map Attachment #5). These areas are characterized by large lots and in some cases remoteness from City services. Urban development in these locations may be unlikely, expensive, or growth-inducing for nearby rural land. • Replace open space designations with residential designations, including new residential expansion areas outside the present urban reserve line. This would encroach on the greenbelt, which is meant to permanently protect agricultural land, wildlife habitat, and watersheds, and to prevent urban sprawl. Approving any of these alternatives would require General Plan amendments and zoning changes. Making these changes would involve reconsideration of important land-use policy issues and the acceptance or mitigation of environmental impacts. Any such approval would require a majority vote of the City Council, which would give strong consideration to city residents affected by an alternative. Because of this, no alternative can be considered a certainty. However, to meet current General Plan housing goals (which have not been judged adequate by the State), the City will need to consider these alternatives if the City is to make up elsewhere any reduced capacity in the Margarita Area. Council Agenda Report—Airport Land Use Planning Page 8 School Site Under California law, school districts are given the authority to determine the need for schools, and their locations. The City's role is primarily a cooperative one. The City and the school district have been evaluating the potential school needs resulting from projected residential development throughout the urban area, and exploring alternative sites for new schools. If substantial residential'development occurs in the southern part of the community, an additional elementary school is expected to be needed. The Margarita Area's central location made it a logical choice. The 1998 draft Margarita Area Specific Plan showed a public elementary school site in the southeastern part of the area,next to the neighborhood park. In response to the adopted ALUP, the latest draft Margarita Area Specific Plan showed a school site at the base of the hills, so it would be in a more compatible airport land-use zone than shown in the 1998 draft. The State Airport Land Use Planning Handbook discourages a school in this area if there is any alternative location. Regardless of what the ALUP and the General Plan say, when the school district proposes acquiring a school site within two miles of an airport runway, it must be referred to Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics, which may prevent the acquisition by recommending against it. The school district has referred the most recently proposed site, and the Division of Aeronautics has recommended against it. School district and State staff are now. checking with the Division of Aeronautics to see if any site in the Margarita Area would be acceptable. According to recent conversations with school district staff, the district expects a new school will be needed in the southern part of the community even if the residential capacity of the Margarita Area is significantly reduced. Due to the locations of existing schools and existing and planned roads, district staff would prefer that it be in the Margarita Area. If a site in the Margarita Area is not acceptable, the Orcutt Area is the only other location that has sizable vacant parcels that are eligible for annexation and City services. However, the Orcutt Area is also within two miles of the runways, so a school site there would also need State approval. A school site in the Orcutt Area would reduce the amount of housing that could be accommodated there. Commercial and Industrial Development This report has focused on potential residential development, because it is subject to the most significant changes under the ALUC's current approach. The type and intensity of commercial and industrial development would be affected as well, but to a substantially smaller degree. The adopted ALUP would have little effect on these types of uses. However, following the State Airport Land Use Planning Handbook or the proposed ALUP amendments would reduce allowed development intensities, mainly in areas designated Business Park northwest of the Airport's main runway. Also, as noted above,the lack of maps showing where the proposed ALUP policies would apply makes it difficult to determine the extent of the reduction. Reduced commercial and industrial development intensities would mean less traffic generation and a closer jobs-housing relationship, but it could make more difficult the financing of public improvements and private design amenities. 1-8 Council Agenda Report—Airport Land Use Planning Page 9 Commercial and industrial development is generally seen as more compatible with the Airport than residential development. Landowners can be expected to assert that land not shown for residential use should be designated for commercial or industrial use. However, the General Plan contains several policies aimed at keeping the capacity for employment growth from exceeding by even more the capacity for housing. growth (Land Use Element policy 1.4 and Housing Element policies 10.1.1 through 10.2.3). In particular, the General Plan discourages changing residential designations to commercial and industrial designations (Land Use Element policies 2.6.1 and 2.6.2). Proposed Collaborative Process There are constraints on alternative criteria for airport compatibility and on alternative locations for housing development. However, existence of these alternatives leaves some room for the City to move from its adopted Land Use Element, and for the ALUC to move from its apparent, current direction. Seeking common ground is preferable to proceeding directly to an override situation. Over the last several months, City staff, the Mayor, and other council members have expressed an interest in finding common ground with the ALUC. The interest in compromise has been expressed in letters, at ALUC meetings, and in one informal lunch involving the Mayor and Councilman Schwartz (the Vice Mayor at the time). So far, these City overtures have not been reciprocated by the ALUC. However, some ALUC commissioners have indicated an interest in meeting with Council members directly to discuss these issues further. Therefore, staff recommends the appointment of a two-member City Council subcommittee. The subcommittee's charge would be to meet with a subcommittee of the ALUC to review options to both the City's and the ALUC's present positions, and to return to the City Council in 90 days with recommended alternatives that will be acceptable to both agencies. This will mean some reduction of the City's current housing target for the Margarita Area, and possibly modification to other areas. It should be the goal of both agencies to resolve the present differences through a spirit of compromise and respect for one another's different interests and responsibilities. If, however, finding such common ground is not possible, then the subcommittee should return to Council with a recommendation as to how best to proceed. At that time the City Council as a whole would give additional direction on amending the General Plan and completing the Margarita and Orcutt specific plans. /- 9 Council Agenda Report—Airport Land Use Planning Page 10 FISCAL IMPACT The recommendation entails no direct costs that require budget action. However, Council.should be aware that the specific planning efforts have already consumed more staff time than initially proposed, partly due to airport-compatibility issues. The time invested in efforts to prepare additional alternatives means less time is available for other City budget goals. At least for the Margarita Area, the effort to achieve better airport compatibility probably will reduce the number of dwellings more than it will reduce the extent of required roads and utilities. As a result, the average cost per dwelling for public facilities will increase. This costs is shared by owners of developable land and by the buyers and renters of housing, and does not have a direct City-budget impact. However, higher per-dwellings facility costs can affect housing affordability and could result in more reliance on public funds to provide affordable housing. ALTERNATIVES The range of land-use options for the Margarita Area is discussed above, and summarized in a comparison table as Attachment#7. The Council's action alternatives include: • Continue this item, which would further delay resolution of the land-use issues; • Direct staff to draft a Margarita Area alternative, without forming a working group with the Airport Land Use Commission, which could accelerate resolution of land-use issues. Attachments #1 —Map: airport vicinity #2—Map: simplified City General Plan with adopted Airport Land Use Plan #3 —Map: simplified City General Plan with airport noise contours #4—Map: simplified City General Plan with State Handbook airport safety zones #5 —Map: possible locations for displaced residential capacity #6—General Plan policies concerning airport compatibility #7—Table: Margarita Area land uses under different airport compatibility standards #8—Conceptual Margarita Layouts Comparison #9—Draft letter from Mayor concerning working group In Council Reading File: California Public Utilities Code and Government Code excerpts Proposed Airport Land Use Plan Amendment(September 2000) Letter from City staff to ALUC on proposed negative declaration for ALUP amendment L:airports\ptng_car.doc Attachment#1 Airport Vicinity •.• •s 1., : • .•w s« : Urban Reserve Line Residential part of r••: •' Dalidio property ti...% •• : • % ;• , i Of. •.•, C ao I :• O TO S : Tank Farm Rd x•: ,Q ............... . Buckley Rd X. N S.L.O. County Regional Airport Miles 0 0.5 Kilometers 0 2 "M MOMMONi City of S.L.O. Community Development Dept. July 2001 � x/projects/com dev/long range/airporUpol_vic.apr �-ll Attachment#2 Adopted Airport Land Use Plan L S' Boundary of Airport Land •% Use Planning Area Urban Reserve Line : •:.t •+ j1�_r � ,• r \5 6 � 5 `°s • �': �, spm 3°� � ° aN �,. • 6 4 4 Tank Farts 5 :f 5 3 .. ... ..• 3 Buddey Rd 5 ... 4 5 General Plan: principal residential development areas 4 3 ALUP compatibility zones 1, 2-airport ownership and control 3-rural residential only, no schools, churches; limited commercial allowed 4-low-density residential approvable; no higher density, schools, or churches; most commercial allowed 5- low and higher density residential, schools, churches approvable; most commercial allowed 6- low and higher density residential, churches, nearly all commercial allowed; schools approvable ^ Miles 0 0.5 1 0 Kilometers (►v City of S.L.O. Community Development Dept. July 2001 x/projects/com dev/long range/airpoNpol_alup.apr f 1 Attachment#3 Average Airport Noise Levels t ...,r•• '; „ Urban Reserve Line S f ,•,~ `00 o^fit �L Ln 'Po soCI ae a :..: •• Tank Farm Rd .........• .. ...... .... .... Buckley Rd General Plan: principal residential development areas ®` Community Noise Equivalent Level contours from the General Pian Noise Element Miles 0 0.5 1 Kilometers 0® "N' City of S.L.O. Community Development Dept. July 2001 x/projects/com devllong range/airport/pol_nse.apr -i3 Attachment#4 State Handbook Safety Zones • c S • %: i S Urban Reserve Line °; �..: e : ........., o TP 00� 3� : R o p2+ •"4... OS IT ank Farm Rd Is •; TP IT SQA ............. . ... ...... • . .o Buckley Rd General Plan: principal residential development areas State Handbook safety zones(Runway 11 only) R P- No residential, institutional, or commercial I S No residential, schools, churches, shopping centers, multistory offices, or labor-intensive manufacturing I T- Only rural residential; no schools; multistory offices, labor-intensive manufacturing discouraged O S, S S - Only rural residential; avoid schools; some office and commercial OK T P- Low density residential OK; avoid schools if there's a feasible alternative Miles 0 0.5 1 0 Kilometers 'N' City of S.L.O. Community Development Dept. July 2001 x/projects/com devAong range/airport/pol_hndb.apr - Attachment#5 Possible Locations for Displaced Residential : .•l Y N i i O'Connor Way �• Area L . r s s •.�. Santa Barbara-Broad Madonna Inn Street Corridors B Valley- Area • Lag a Hills. fi %....•: -� Urban Reserve Line %ti Guth ; Area Kuden-Perozzi Hansen Lane •h••••'N O '4 0 d N •• s' Tank Farm Rd G A Buddey Rd Areas that the General Plan does not designate for urban residential use or for permanent open space Mostly undeveloped land Mostly developed land Miles 0 0.5 1 Kilometers 0 1 2 N City of S.L.O. Community Development Dept. August 2001 x/Projectslcom dev/long rangelaifporVpol_disp.apr /-/� Attachment#6 General Plan policies concerning airport compatibility Land Use Element Policy 7.2: Airport Land Use Plan Development should be permitted only if it is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. Prospective buyers of property which is subject to airport influence should be so informed. Housing Element Policy 11.2.2: Consistency The City should not permit development of housing on a site if development conflicts with goals or policies of this Element, other General Plan Elements, or with other community goals. Housing Element Policy 11.2.3: New Development The City should prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved for open space or parks, or on sites subject to natural hazards or unacceptable manmade hazards. Housing Element Program 11.3.1: Regulations The City will adopt regulations to prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved as open space, and on sites subject to natural hazards like geological or flood hazards, or wild fire hazards. The City should also adopt regulations to prevent new housing development on sites subject to unacceptable levels of manmade hazards or nuisances, including severe soil contamination, airport noise or hazard, traffic noise or hazard, odors, or incompatible neighboring uses. Open Space Element Policy 7.1.1: Preserve Hazard Areas Direct urban growth away from areas subject to hazards and preserve hazard areas as open space or parkland. Safety Element Policy 6.1: Airport Land Use Plan Development should be permitted only if it is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. Prospective buyers of property that is subject to airport influence should be so informed. Circulation Element Policy 10.1: Airport Land Use Plan The City should respect the recommendations of the Airport Land Use Plan as it relates to noise and safety concerns. Circulation Element Policy 10.3: Land Use Surrounding Airport The City and the County should regulate land use surrounding the airport so that it is compatible with airport operations and does not threaten the continued use of the airport. l -��O Attachment #7 Margarita Area Land Uses under Different Airport Compatibility Standards 1998 Draft Adopted Adopted ALUP & Proposed MASP ALUP State Handbook ALUP Maximum total dwellings 1,200 800 600 10 Dwellings at density greater 800 350 50 0 than "low" Residential acreage 100 90 80 100? CommerciaVindustrial acreage 50 60 50 at least 60 [Open s ace acreage 160 160 1 175 at least 160 Parks acreage 35 50 35 15 Umasp/air_comp.doc 1-17 Attachment#8 Conceptual Margarita Layouts Comparison L ua �. Based on 1998 draft ALUP '�'' r�' '�� ;�-`= '�� �. ° — sand Use Key ` i'iir; il'�2ii ,.l.l.ti ;irllOpenSpace <°•; r•'. ,> ,{ Park 8�Playfields <t k{• :`: Elementary School Low Density Resid. a „� I .\ . . . . . . . . . . • • . ' '%>` Medium Density Res. 1 ; V.)fAw.. � LSY . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;'; ''' • i• -----_ Medium-hi hDensi ty High-density Mixed Use ,,, , r � - . . . . . . . ;;�',.% 4�,f• NeighborhoodComm'I. Bus. Park or Special Use J {.. i % \ ® . . . . . . . . Y —.�a� .= !...yam �:.�.• i Based on adopted ALUP lii l ,� sy u'% Land Use Key . . . . . . . �.Z7 's < Open Space ti w ��.•.,�,i; •i . . . . . . . . . . 1`j rrr a '4' Park& Playfields ;f•;y'• . . . . . . . . . . . . " qP Elementary School t >_ Low Density Resid. cam...': i; Medium Density Res. r... . . . . . . . . . . . . . f; Medium-high Density High-density Mixed Use • • • ' • ' ' e Neighborhood Comm'I. . . . . . . \ �� tt '� ,���,'>:` [� Bus. Park or Special Use . . \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '�/ \ •// \`.✓/ . �•:.} .1"TM Y3 TSI .: . . . . . . . . . . . . >/ ;\ . . . . . . . . . . . . tiy —_ . . . . . . . . LZ u� I 1 C' '• r. i i pro? wM mig ai cmp.apr i-18 ' Attachment#9 Draft Letter to Airport Land Use Commission San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California Honorable Commissioners: The City has been working for many years to achieve planning consistency with the County and with your Commission. The City supports land-use planning for compatibility with Airport noise and safety conditions. At the same time, the City has other goals that cannot be ignored in our efforts to assure the continued safe operation of the Airport. Chief among these other goals are balancing additional employment and housing opportunities in the San Luis Obispo area, and protecting open space for reasons other than overflight safety. The City Council has followed with interest your efforts to update the Airport Land Use Plan. As you know, your decisions can have profound impacts on the City's ability to achieve its goals and to comply with other aspects of State law. To complete three major specific planning efforts now underway, and to have.a consistent General Plan, it is essential that the Council know your intent for long-term planning in the airport vicinity. In particular,the City needs to complete a Margarita Area Specific Plan, one version of which you have determined is not compatible with the airport. The City Council understands and appreciates the charge given you under State law. It is Council's belief that State airport land-use planning rules and guidelines allow some latitude in determining compatible land uses. There may be land-use alternatives that,while not ideal in everyone's view, would allow both agencies to meet their basic obligations. On September 10, 2001, the City Council named a subcommittee of Councilmembers Ken Schwartz and Jan Marx to work with a subcommittee of your Commission, in a collaborative effort to explore and define mutually acceptable land-use alternatives. We ask that you also name representatives and work with us and our staff over the next two months or so,to prepare a recommendation that can accommodate both agencies long-term needs. We look forward to hearing from you and will be happy to coordinate the first meeting. Respectfully, Allen K. Settle Mayor alup mayor letter 2.doc 1-19 � "ETING AGENDA - UATE ITEM #_ _ San LUIS Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street San Luis Obispo. California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 _:, : (805) :543-1255 • TDD (805) 5411-84116 David E. Garth, Presidcnt(CEO November 27, 2000 COUNCIL Mt DD DIR VW<2o [i FIN DIR Airport Land Use Commission o ❑ FIRE CHIEF County of San Luis Obispo W(ORNEY 0. PW DIR CLERWRIG ❑ 0 CE CHF County Government Center ❑ DEPT HEADS ❑ REC DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ HR DIR Dear Commissioners: The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce has a history of promoting and protecting the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. We have long held that a viable airport is critical to our economy. We were active participants in the development of the Airport Master Plan. -1 With that background in mind, we have taken a look at the proposed amendment to the Airport nd Use Plan and.have identified several-elements of concern to our membership. Primary among these is the proposed 55 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level. By adopting a CNEL that is not consistent with the City's General Plan Noise Element, the amendment would virtually eliminate up to half the new dwelling units planned for in the City's General Plan Because our city's need for housing is critical, we respectfully request that you consider the adoption of a 60 dB DNUCNEL as is deemed applicable to suburban settings. Our position in this matter is based on our concern for the community as a whole. It is important, in our view, to balance the protection of the airport with our housing needs. We encourage compromise with a thoughtful look at the overall good of our area. Ultimately, our hope is to achieve a healthy and prosperous airport serving a community that can also grow appropriately. We encourage you to consider the importance of this balance as you continue the amendment process. Sincerely, RECEIVED Dave Cox l SEP ) 2001 -r'hairman of the Board SLO CITY COUNCIL e-mail: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com AGENDA ' DATE '/D-D/ ITEM #), San Luis Obispo Chamber or Commerce '03p9 Chorro Streei San Luis Obispo, Caiiiomia 93-0 -3278 September 7, 20�4b1 `8' 2 ` ` ''"` (8051 543/1255 • TOG SO:i) 541-8ut6 rr� David EGarth. Presiceni/C��- Mayor Allen Settle cQUNCIL DD DIR Members of the City Council ❑ FIN DIR �a,0 [I FIRE CHIEF City of San Luis Obispo Er-A130RNEY ❑ Pw oIR 990 Palm Street 61( LERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ D PT S C3 REO DIR ❑ UTIL DIR CO HR DIR Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members, Since last September when the proposed amendments to the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport were published, our Chamber has been concerned about the serious consequences that these amendments could have on housing proposed for the City's General Plan, particularly in the Margarita Area. \� We have communicated with the Airport Land Use Commission by letter (see enclosed) and in public testimony, voicing our concerns about the social and quality of life implications that their future policies will have on our community. At this important juncture., as you consider land use issues involving the San Luis Obispo County Airport, we want to clearly state the Chamber's recognition of the importance of housing in the Margarita Area toward meeting our housing needs. In order to nurture and protect existing businesses and jobs, it is crucial that a range of affordable housing to cover a variety of.lifestyles for employees be developed. We. encourage you to work with the ALUC to try to come to a land use agreement for the area that is acceptable to both agencies. By adopting noise levels appropriate to a suburban rather than rural setting and providing assurances that the Margarita Specific Plan meets all state and federal guidelines we could go along way toward the cbmpromise that is necessary for the community to acquire much needed housing in this area. In our recent member survey,.75% of the respondents indicated that the cost of housing in San Luis Obispo has made it more difficult to hire well-qualified employees. Public institutions and private businesses are finding that prospective employees are not able to find or afford an appropriate home. Understanding the critical need for housing, the prospect of eliminating half of the proposed housing stock for the city is unconscionable. RECEIVED SEP 0 7 2001 e-mail: slochamberaslochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitsIc SW CITY COUNCII I ' We are confident that you will do everything possible to pursue the development of housing as called for in the housing element of the City's General Plan. Our members support both housing and a viable airport. We are convinced that with constructive dialogue and reasonable compromise, one need not exclude the other. Sincerely, Dave Juhnke Chairman of the Board J /0 Why Revise The Existing Airport Land Use Plant Areas in Which the 1973 Airport Land Use Plan Fails to Meet the Requirements of the California Department of Transportation,as Set Forth in theAirport Land Use Planning Handbook: I. The authority and purpose of the Airport Land Use Commission are not ad- equately defined. 2. The area of geographic coverage of theAirport Land Use Plan is not adequately defined. 3. The local jurisdictions affected by theAirport Land Use Plan are not identified. 4. The limitations of the Airport Land Use Plan are not specified. S. —'Information concerning the airport planning status,Airport Master Plan,airport layout diagram,and projected airport activity levels is severely outdated. 6. Airport planning area boundaries do not follow identifiable geographic features nor are they defined in terms of distances from the airport.. 7. The current Airport Land Use Plan contains no statement of policy with re- spect to general incompatibilities between land use and airport operations,nor with respect to incompatibilities due to safety factors, noise impacts, airspace protection,or overflight impacts. 8. The types of actions on the part of local government bodies which must be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission are not specified. 9. Information required for review of a proposed local action or project by the Airport Land Use Commission is not defined. 10. Appropriate timing for referrals to the Airport Land Use Commission is not indicated. [ I. State-mandated requirements relating to the time limits for decisions on the part of theAirport Land Use Commission on local actions or projects referred for review is not indicated. 12. The choices of action provided to the Airport Land Use Commission by state law are not defined. 13. The 1973 Airport Land Use Plan contains no statement reserving the right of the Airport Land Use Commission to determine the compatibility of local ac- tions with the Airport Land Use Plan. ' & •ma>! Normalization: Correctil %irport Noise Neasuremenl )btained in Other Than Urban Environments The California Department of Transportation Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (1994),Page 6-33 Characteristics of Noise/Chapter 6 Amount of Correction to be Added to Type of Measured Correction Description DNL in dB Seasonal Summer(or year-round operation). 0 Correction Winter only(or windows always closed) —5 Correction for Quiet Suburban or rural community(remote from large cities and +10 Outdoor from industrial activity and trucking). Noise Level Measured in Normal suburban community(not located near industrial activity) +5 Absence of Urban residential community(not immediately adjacent to heavily- 0 Intruding traveled roads and industrial areas). a Noise Noisy urban residential community(near relatively busy roads or —5 industrial areas). Very noisy urban residential community —10 Correction for No prior experience with the intruding noise +5 Previous Community has had some previous exposure to intruding noise,but 0 Exposure& little effort is being made to control the noise. This correction may Community Attitudes also be applied in a situation where the community has not been exposed to the noise previously,but the people are aware that bona fide efforts are being made to control the noise. Community has had considerable previous exposure to the —5 intruding noise and the noise maker's relations with the community are good. Community aware that the operation causing noise is very necessary —10 and it will not continue indefinitely. This correction can be applied for an operation of limited duration and under emergency circumstances a No pure tone or impulsive character 0 Pure tone or impulsive character present +5 Source: U.S.En%&onmentel Protection Agency(1974) Table 6-D Correction Factors for Obtaining Normalized DNL December 1993 6-33 Airport Land Use Plan San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Safety Policies Aviation Safety Condition ALUP Provisions Runway Protection Zones No additional structures or obstacles per- mitted Aircraft Operating at: Land use density_5_40 persons/acre • Extremely low altitudes (5500 feet) • Residential land use density:50.1 to 0.2 and dwelling unit/acre • Significant frequency (routes utilized Preservation of open space equal to 25% of land area (50% in locations within 250 by >_10% of flights arriving,departing, or performing closed traffic maneu- feet of runway centerline and within 3000 vers.or feet of runway) • Preservation of open spaces suitable for • Operations in reduced visibility con- ditions emergency landing sites at intervals of one- quarter mile • "Impaired egress" uses prohibited • "Unusually hazardous" uses prohibited Aircraft Operating at: Land use density::Jpersons/acre fl t�0 • Low altitudes (—<SOO feet) Limited residential land use density: :56 and dwelling units/acre Significant frequency (routes utilized • Preservation of open space equal to 15% by >_10% of flights arriving,departing, of land area or performing closed traffic maneu- • Preservation of open spaces suitable for vers.or emergency landing sites at intervals of one- • Operations in reduced visibility con- half mile ditions • "Impaired egress" uses prohibited 4 "Unusually hazardous" uses prohibited Airport Land Use Plan San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Basis for Noise Policies • Local Experience • Scientific Research • Published Standards Airport Land Use Handbook Title 21 United States Environmental Protection Agency World Health Organization Natural Resources Defense Council • DOT Review C M `yt YF.;a' k ^"1..ty'�s}. ^Y`y r�;pizj�n �f��'��is i•yJu{'f��ty�kg.7�y{�r�,ct�' .V,�fi".�)c�Lls.py�4 v y . a' "�ol ""K.S7j 49 +�a; +i. .Z t r d t:•M1G.a..r` C ra ,�" n`y'R` Ln 4r rP 4`� a .,r.r'Xt Y ✓?R a' r ff ' f �^'ti O K 4 '] t�p F�rt. - rs\e Pt• st o-LL v .• r P r 5."Ftt LtC d g gill," 6A� t' r YM y .Avr ru Y� dim dr hY .Y "a-•E J /"ti 'S..�f{. +v9�„Y cr. if f t 's 1. r ?• sy ® C - 2 �?• 4�.p�Tn'•}' Rr' § ' F hf�Y �? .Ekd A A"r' 6 rr k /z OD D.. "�-` y S ,f} '� a . . 1� s NS^•' K y ro yPi, '. r LJ Y"n,. yg,� �e�4" y' s r�u' j 'Yr .o u r s 1 t s5 C ., x AL s'r`d $.ri I✓koh � r, ' ^tom ',car�..'r-7 N' '.` ✓.. r \ y r . :; g� V. gg� _af$!✓ �Lri'd � � r't" ^rS uta£.$, rF e-�"x 57�` r ,+n'd k� t'X 1, r h g r a+• �� J .:�'a"3 Tri''`f'�'vrrs�i°l �Ck Jr���"� r� ;di.S.,, ...''i.•. tr y O hS' rf `2'fay Y `.!➢� `S' d4eh ..�Jh a ac v'e r"«. r. > [h 1 ;Ae, E ° _ r y i a r-_✓5 ? s rwf`^`� y r r a r r d �D yf tl $rtiyf ervnrK` t r v s t 't cr�T c. .L ? U '"•�'�'�'='Hr���'`si�yfi�P4/ �v�h(' �r r. .r yd��vTk O t"rr,F , Y .�b� ✓+$.y m 4 y c�' i. � f yu y.. ('� ` � S7 ti 2a r�g�K�'�i�y`. a r�fl�=4(g3,�• �' �.# tN>< �.�` x , r >a � 91 0 a u - "i•y �4'n+=.'wo(� a ' r , s t J ' tea, _ 54.Y I- 6 LtY2r..'hiA s.r rhx+,s ® !Y .« -Y+'b•L se� o�F G t „j�� .• r" Y t x -�,� � f�, n i ✓S nx xr3 n r 1$ r ' t �? Ln It it 1.� f •a v x xs y t f v y�ca ® 'IT N Q co 'tO C N O „paAouuvj A142iH,, a iV oqM suas,aad ;O 3uaD.sad Percent of Persons Highly Annoyed o sn o a„ o crt o u� o tin fes. }� r`�`Y4 i Goo e c:� ' z 434, OAS n" ' S1 a✓fro s , L Fwr tld Ff3 w .'i r � ardt t�a� C°"' ��u d"a aY.4�, �✓' P 1 h'cs, v.�»ai t1+ •+.xxor 5++ )'rro Lis EL ra _ +•. r a c pl p its k1 d , g` PS+T�rY. .r +� x� ;' d°ur-cri C"L,sOIS: 71 4 y �Ltr,WOO rF.a �^ nhr..}�y{ T3 F a ',$�3.Ya� `@+' ,`i�•� 'r + � aY"+Erin b de?.5f•+ 3 _ ✓gr't.'a� r��}�"+�C` v,..at'rt ? l't4,6 IT,-` iT c y any C }', Ip, a .4Py'tYr 5i.4^f + '.o�Ab'MN"f%xF ILK- y. ",R', P, s St)}r'x ;�"•� %rc< w d D a t r ) 's t �.,..i.�d-,"' �tq .# LA on .t+ IM"Xa.�CO { Z .a `nM �Y�.•��tr "' .� '""`'''~ �' (F 9 . SPF' .a, i QV y}E 11 'L As. - 1 Fr p p 4Z, r v tO) i O O L1. Q � s Q O Q ZZ S FiZZ G! v4, a0 LLl O ._ Q Q o Q •� y � V n. o � � � •> .o o � i = ►� vi S S 4, S •�. Q s _ O S S O Q V V un con •Q o � � Q Q sz Q =' vsz � Q I SZ S o u � o Q LQ o u z Q Q i R cs 4J Q -a O N O U sz cl- Q . O Q , U SZ v Q � S `n O tn (J 'B s tj SZ yrj� tn Ln vz California Code of Regulations. Title 21 Normalized Community Noise Standards Urban Community Noise Standard from: California Code of Regulations,Title 21, Chapter 6(Noise Standards)Article 1,Section 5006 (Findings). Normalization Procedure from: California Department o f Transportation Airport Land Use Planning Handbook December, 1994,page 6-33. Acceptable Ambient Noise Level (dB CNEL) 65 Acceptable Noise Level in Urban Residential Community 60 55 Acceptable Noise Level, Normalized for San Luis Obispo 50 United States Environmental Protection Agency Community Noise Standards Data from Report No.55019-74-004: Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Wel f are with an Adequate Margin of Safety Acceptable Ambient Community Environment Noise Level (dB DNL) 6S - Noisy Urban Community 60 Urban Community SS Normal Suburb SO - - Quiet Suburb i World Health Organization Maximum Continuous Noise Levels Data from Report of the London Task Force(March,1999Y Guidelines for Community Noise Acceptable Noise Level (dB LAeq) 70 Industrial, Commercial &Traffic Areas 60 School Playgrounds sQ Residential and Outdoor Living Areas 40 Indoor Dwellings,School Classrooms 30 Bedrooms, Hospital Patient Rooms Percent of Persons Affected w -D, w o% ra CO 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 T , , y t tIM' ix F�,,tG a QF ° s P z e P Y Y'' S Y/Aa2f •'„2 fapJ '"d*, �•� •e^s Q r f +G"4 x •"zv A T y1 L�b t�y'°�r n s �. ^• Z _.•.i ,r tj "' x i x x T ,,�t„ *�',z�w�,p��v f� -a.`t't� 3 C' n IN _ q ai. .1CK AK<"✓ L .lGc v,. Y `AMd�F 9tW6U' ,�rd �GQ'if'z+' .G 11.Bn1YAGLf i' 44 '}F ry � .."'w` xT"rr-.9w ✓'•a ^$ B ,uc;.a.�2, 4, r f��'gyn( '� /► � H � C , n 2 A:' i �t, qa a�'X� 7'1 '`-�" G 7 CL a N Qbh.r CD In LD ® v, `YA,a r��� AYE a � e ��,�"` � E i [w���+'•,�N �"° d K"21.W f l+T ,7 *">Hit1 .War - 1 '!zt HOB i^^rr ' +'' "x any y'�l ^tf5.,r Pe. t d'��'' :. K �J✓�.5 n {��,M1�� PF� Mpe yy u 4'6. n wt WW ...rr,. C K Jar e� a41 ��«pHts��� J.g CL T' n rl r r J' Af'754 F�,�f�e? rv✓ '�r (y'.`�•�Y+f ' 'A 'Y,e Y1kt L%°r.>. �Qe. •��� y fir.'" L k �??t'�a-S 1r.f�K.�S�µ'+" ��i�S''gk'f,°ak'���T:SirS.`% S Y ygl � C *+ C E IL ,1 O G a c �+ a MA o00 L C L N p C- cu S a; •� •�' c i m Ae Cd E d o 4j �. 41 � y Q aC u E cc 41 Cd .o J ; Z p Z a L Vf 41 Q a- 0 u h C C m l0 fA 41 -v -v c V u O 3dN o Q V c U) %D oG cG V d C '�' � � O ''' O -0 O Z Z o h GO CL- C A J L 0. L Q ld 4) d C _tv ice+ � v = u C '°7v o. a a 9E 9% 0Q C A E EL c ° �� ° Qz c � JC � 0 E D O h Q d 4) p �. ' bF 6V C 6� IL FA a O I y V N 10 i � y 0 r ,0 V Qin ❑❑ r = p T-7 r 96 0 41 i� 0 Q LA N Percentage of Housing Units Which Are Owner-Occupied and Renter-Occupied in the City of San Luis Obispo and in the Remainder of SLO County 100- 90- 80- 3 0090803 70- Q60V60- V d M 3 0 50 0 w 4Q 0 a� ami 30 v Owner-Occupied CL El 20 El Renter-Occupied 10- 0- City 00City of Remainder of San Luis Obispo SLO County i w CD CL a = ❑ ❑ m00 � O A w n O vc ? p W mID H 7 0 rn O � n >3 O CL W , m m = O ON s n r d C !D 0 (D Z N O 3 N a e+ _ < s m m ce �p rt N m CL i Why Revise The Existing Airport Land Use Plant The Airport Land Use Commission is legally obligated to maintain a current and up- dated Airport Land Use Plan: California Public Utilities Code,Section 21675(a): ....The comprehensive land use plan shall be reviewed as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purposes,but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year. In addition,when revising or amending an Airport Land Use Plan,the Airport Land Use Commission is required to meet the requirements of the State of California Depart- ment of Transportation,as detailed in the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook: California Public Utilities Code,Section 21674.7. An airport land use commission that formulates, adopts, or amends a comprehensive airport land use plan shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation. I), Am • r > tdr.sTf OKY up Mad 'S 'ICAO ip /10 goo, MrA 1 I � dwdi�i�n O L 7] ,'C ; S ����,� •'tel \� : lI rs r(F� I ' I _ -ee 30 The Airport Land Use Planning Zone Map IIntended Use fThe Airport Land Use Planning Zone Map (which follows) is intended for use in employing the Specific Airport Land Use Compatibility Criteria, as delineated in the Land Use Matrix. IThe Airport Land Use Planning Zone Map defines six separate zones within the Aiprort Land Use Planning Area: Zone i Airport Building Areas includes the terminal area, fixed base operator buildings, hangars, tiedown areas, parking areas, and areas planned for such uses . IZone 2 Other Airport. Property - land owned by the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, but not in use nor planned for use as building areas, runways, or taxi- ways Zone 3 Approach and Climbout Exten ions - specified areas under the approach and taken extensions Zone 4 Land Adjacent to the Airport ort and Between Run wa Extensions IZone 5 Other Areas Between Runway Exten Zone 6 Other Land within the Airport Planning Area I To: ALUC Members From: Dave Romero Subject:. Clarification of exhibits and criteria As I review the considerable amount of material 1 have .received as a new commissioner, I find a number of items which are puzzling to me in that they appear to be inconsistent. Perhaps I am not understanding the implications in the plain reading of the text. I could use some help with the following: A. Airport Land Use Planning Zone Map (pg 30, 31 of draft ALUP) 1) Zone 3 shows- "Approach and Climbout Extensions - specified areas under the approach and takeoff extensions." Maps I have seen for other airports have shown a trapezoidal shape similar to that shown for SLO's E/W runways. Why is the shape of zone 3 .for runways 29. and 11 shown in a curving shape with a pronounced curve toward the turning air traffic pattern? Why is there a protrusion at the end of zone 3 for runway 29? It is my understanding that aircraft have to take off in a straight out alignment until they reach a required altitude. 2) Zone 4 shows "Land Adjacent to the Airport and between runway extensions." The SLO Airport Map shows many areas designated 4 that are NOT "Adjacent to the Airport and between runway extensions". Why is the Map shown in it's present form? t3) Zone 5 shows "Other Areas between Runway Extensions". Most of the areas shown on the SLO map don't fit that criteria at all. B.. Airport Land Use Matrix (pg 30, 34-36 of draft ALUP) 1) Zone 1 designates "Airport Building Areas.......and areas planned for such uses." Why does the Matrix allow all manner of agriculture, commercial and recreational uses, power lines, and even hospitals? Shouldn't uses in this zone be absolutely restricted to airport related uses? 2) Zone 2 designates "Other Airport Property - ......land owned by the SLO Regional Airport but not in use or planned for use as building areas, runways, or taxiways." The Matrix however, shows no difference between zone 1 and zone 2. Certainly zone 1 should be more restrictive than zone 2. (Incidentally, the map shows the recent extension of runway 29 toward Buckley Rd. to be in zone 2. This is not in keeping with the designation.) 3) The Matrix shows that all uses in zone 6 are compatible (only schools are conditioned). The Interpretation section on pg 34 states "Review of the proposed project by ALUC is not required or requested unless development requires adoption of an amendment to a general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance or building code, or unless such review is desired by the local agency." Why do we consider projects in zone 6 (Broad Street LLC and Costco - 01/17/01 meeting)? Are we just making work for ourselves? °A C. Policy N-2 (pg 20) is proposing a 55dB CNEL limit, except for infill projects. Summary information (pg 5,6) with the draft document gives .a number of reasons, mostly subjective, for setting such a low level. The Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (pg 3-3) suggests the following criteria: "Encourage use of 60 dB CNEL as maximum for residential land in quiet communities (or even 55 dB at rural airports)". Chapter 7 of the Handbook reviews regulations of many Federal and State agencies, with recommended residential noise level standards ranging between 55 dB and 65 dB, with most being at the 65 dB level. On pg 7-15, the California Office of Noise Control recommends 60 dB "as the normally acceptable noise exposure for residential areas" and "as suitable for airports in suburban settings". The key issue is whether SLO Airport is in a "rural" or a "suburban" setting. It is difficult for me to believe we could honestly classify this airport as rural. I am unaware of the process that ALUC has gone through to arrive at this _recommendation in the draft report, however there are huge implications on the City's planning and development in that area of the community. (See Projected Noise Exposure Map) To quote again from the Handbook (pg 3-25) "Unless a balance can be found which allows a reasonable degree of both land use compatibility and land use development, many local jurisdictions will proceed in a manner they perceive to be the most economically advantageous and will override ALUC actions if necessary." As is evident from this memo, I have a number of areas of concern with our documents and would very much appreciate a study session to see if they can be clarified or revised. ,; tic 7i {L ec ar ym m 7 m N ag N 0 4i A A U 7Z� Lo d Cc �m cc pd 7g 5 .r et N 3 3" a'c P �g Q t0 Q ioe V U N 0 Q Q y v -' .r Nd d0 dd do EU'411 � a) 00000 C r� Q� r N6 T° 5 0u � H CL C L a 7 � w m a s P w N� �U l7Q UD CO O O M to d 41 tv IA v °CP i L � J lie Q Z Z 0: orA o L - ° L L _ f � o o 9w.. p V $ W H -4 Z O g H��era Suet d O OC Q m L 77 H % 'Oc fA W L p �O mgt O A N - F N C p v 3 _ J 0 m V a W g a Z 4 N_ ¢ y t! 8 o ami a 3 N CIO 8 = N ma O Q C 0 u � 4 0 v 'a a d Q 4 L L L � a An O so b Uf N J Q e z Q Z m OrE c' h Q O ° u UA Vd zz 5 WSu Street O IL W Q 9 d3W3sn aNvi laodaro A 3 7i ,,n LL W 2� t ue o G d ZAd a �3 n. m x a ads�ee a 5 (CG ` c g.o �O- H e J L vE22 Qgt Z L N H.o 5 s� Q 9s H 0 Ccr i? �5 W �� 8s e'u9 a v 31 F- oE qq d ulti II G 3 6i 4 E= E0 d s a O CL us 3 � =figo �u 1 ❑ ❑ D u � °ia d Q y i ao L E Nro Vl a i Q a Z W a � 4c ~ a f � F w �_ a V �° W 0 IA 8 OD d Z v J a o�C Wiguem Stet g Oo 0 S V3NV3Sn aNVI-WOdNIV £`d3w3sn aw imodwv a � - ■ ■ » % f ; ! . 2 �� f 7 et sf � >"x 2 § Z-0 u ' NBA ■ J eo ) 22� � \ ■ & t \ ■ , t 2 8- ( z ga j �� FA / k2�ccW }. 2 2 ■ ■ . 2 } k \ Z | CL ° o n. § g \f}� 2 ' Vl E or x ƒ 2J § ' « 0 6 a § ■ , � . . � q 2d i \ jCr \ \ br2 ± ■ j e ■ z - % \\ 4- 2a) _ |2a §§"! o § £ /\ z � ■�� \ X22 e ] 7 ! o r 0 Q z 2 IA D . z S & �� & ■ « a� L 00 ii W m4 > ; E 9 3i, 5�0t Z 8 �� Broad M a f 0 0 $ W C r > U °� Z ❑ ❑ ® N 2 W Y A SS d O e � OS O o a � O E F x ' d u El El 0 CLFA d IA�1 ' Q e.. 1 Di0 � m E an o Vl H �e Z Z m� O _ c' �n 4' U F o H AL g m Z 8 O Hague'Street 8 0 oC Q San Luis Obispo County Regional_Airport- Noise Complaints July 99 to June 00 July 00 to June 01 Total Complaints: 299* 361 Total Residences/Locations: 84* 86* Total Unknown Residence: 14 9 Subtotals byarea: r! OTZ Country Club/Rolling Hills Complaints 148 124 Residences/Locations 29 26 Unknown 3 . 5 Buckley Road Complaints 37 63 Residences/Locations 6 9 South Higuera Complaints 5* 39* Residences/Locations 4* 7* Laguna Lake Complaints 14 6 Residences/Locations 12 .5 City Complaints 24 7 Residences/Locations 16 6 Unknown 1 2 Edna-lslay Area Complaints 48 89 Residences/Locations 7 8• Unknown 3 Other or Unknown Complaints 23 33 Residences/Locations 10 25 Unknown 7 3 * One habitual complainant excluded. Party responsible for several hundred calls per year. SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA NOISE COMPLAINT MAP - BASIC OVERVIEW - FY 1999-00 „MpRaV�ST oCharro O�imi 4oldtreeo v �rPrj ,�tb • 'N" 01 n Luis Obispo R t[arnptcn CAT0011 a _p a . • . ,�" • •`4, e • G ' • ah A* ^ a u • P a Cie Tank Farm Rd ::'• {F7 A rb Ad !•� ti ••N • . r, . •t' •• • • • 'I � rD 1rD D • -Edna e °a c 02001 t&pQuestcom, Inc.;02001 GDT, Inc. • 1 to 4 complaints 5 to 9 complaints • 10 to 19 complaints • 20 or more A 1 to 4 complaints (only partial information provided by complainant) 0 Habitual complainant. Several hundred calls per year. SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA NOISE COMPLAINT MAP - BASIC OVERVIEW - FY 2000-01 ;"P aVEST' - °Chorro p�l mi � Goldtreeo 1� Cry LPP6 • ;S~Oek -E-F9otLM Bhtd,,� 04 LUIS Obispo t{av ptonnY° A 0 S`Quth- Y� . (j: u � \ 4 ��'0rne v o1 Tank Farm Rd= .. _.. ;.� Q3♦ • � r At A 4 q{d C . . . 4yy `� ally - A• _a✓:. to • .,Edna • • "tai 0 _ ell 02001 MspQuest•oorrInc.;02001 GDT. Inc. • 1 to 4 complaints 5 to 9 complaints • 10 to 19 complaints • 20 or more At 1 to 4 complaints (only partial information provided by complainant) 9 Habitual complainant. Several hundred calls per year.