HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-2013 c6 johnson aviation agreement amendment
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
SUBJECT: AMEND SCOPE OF WORK WITH JOHNSON AVIATION TO PROVIDE
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WITH AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN CHAPTER OF
LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize an increase in the scope of work and a contract amendment in an amount not to exceed
$80,000 under an existing agreement with Johnson Aviation in order to provide technical assistance
with preparing an Airport Land Use Plan chapter of the Land Use Element as part of the General
Plan Update.
DISCUSSION
Background
Nick Johnson of Johnson Aviation has been assisting the City in developing technical information
related to update of the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. The Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) has not seemed receptive to the technical information that has been provided
that would support safety zone dimensions based on the operational, geographic, and metrological
conditions that affect the airport. The ALUC is considering expanding and shifting the zones in a
way that has the potential to further impact development capacity for the southern area of the City.
This shift would impact areas currently addressed in the Airport Area Specific Plan as well as
portions of the City outside of that area (Caltrans site at Madonna and Higuera for example). The
ALUC’s apparent support for expansion of safety zones to the west of Runway 7-25 will result in
limitations to development on the Avila Ranch, and will virtually eliminate any consideration of
residential potential on this property (as called for in the Housing Element) unless an override is
approved by a 4/5’s City Council vote.
One option available to the City is to develop an airport land use chapter of the Land Use Element
which is currently being updated. Public Utilities Code §21676.5b authorizes a local jurisdiction to
adopt a land use plan for the airport area by overruling the ALUC. If done at the General Plan
level, subsequent review by the ALUC of individual development projects related to that overruling
is not required. While this approach is not typical, it will provide the City with the ability to
establish safety zones that have a rational nexus to operational, noise and safety data, and future
land use decisions would be made solely by the City. It would also provide a method for aligning
the appropriate safety zones and land use considerations with the City’s zoning maps and
designations, thereby providing more accurate information and certainty for the community.
In order to pursue this approach to land use planning, it is imperative that the City have the
technical data and airport operational projections needed to proceed. Aeronautical and airport land
use planning is a highly specialized field of land use planning. The City will need to meet the State
Meeting Date
Item Number July 16, 2013
C6 - 1
Johnson Aviation Agreement Amendment Page 2
Aeronautics Act and all provisions of the CA Airport Land Use Planning Handbook in order to
achieve a responsible plan. Since this is an undertaking that requires a special expertise, additional
services from Johnson Aviation will be required.
The recent plane crash was a tremendous tragedy for the pilot, his family and the community.
Fortunately, no one on the ground was injured. The crash occurred within the safety zones defined
by the CA State Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Since these zones take all crash data into
account and correspond to runway length, the zones are inclusive of most factors, however, any
approach to defining safety zones will need to fully evaluate local conditions that may affect the
location and dimensions of the safety zones. Airplane crashes, although rare, do occur, and the
City’s responsibility to the community is to understand how airport operations impact existing and
proposed development and to respond with appropriate land use standards.
While the ALUC is still formulating its final recommendation to update the Airport Land Use Plan,
staff wants to ensure the City is positioned to explore the approach to defining a separate Airport
Chapter in the Land Use Element if necessary. The attached proposal from Johnson Aviation
estimates the cost of this endeavor to be $79,340.
Johnson Aviation was originally selected through a proposal process. The consultant provided a
quality and responsive proposal based upon the understanding of the required work from the City.
The consultant has demonstrated ongoing competence in the area of aeronautical and airport
planning and the necessary professional qualifications. The consultant began work with the City in
2010 and has provided ongoing guidance related to airport issues and is uniquely familiar with the
City’s General Plan, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), Airport Master
Plan, and State and Federal Guidelines governing the operations and planning of airports. There are
a limited number of qualified consultants that provide these services that have the professional
background and experience to work on complex regulation of land uses affected by airport
operations.
CONCURRENCES
The City Attorney concurs with this approach to address airport planning.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposal entails $79,000 in costs for consultant services. This funding was identified in the
2011-2013 Financial Plan for consultant services and project costs associated with planning efforts
and has been encumbered until Council could consider the request. General Funds in the amount of
$79,340 are being requested from encumbered but unspent consultant services and project expense
funds from the 2012-13 budget.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council could wait until the ALUC defines its project description for updating the
Airport Land Use Plan to determine whether additional consultant services are needed. This
approach is not recommended as timeliness of assistance from the consultant is important in
C6 - 2
Johnson Aviation Agreement Amendment Page 3
keeping the LUCE update effort on track to meet the grant deadline.
2. The City Council could wait to submit the draft LUCE update to the ALUC for finding of
consistency and take action at that point to either accept the ALUC’s findings or to overrule
a potential negative finding of consistency. This is not recommended because the LUCE
update would not have addressed airport safety and noise issues in compliance with State
Aeronautics Act standards. Overrule could still be done, however, subsequent actions that
relied on the Land Use Element designations would still need to be reviewed for Airport
Land Use Plan consistency and potential overrule required on a case by case basis for every
discretionary decision (such as at the subdivision stage or for architectural review). Staff
believes that policy supported by objective evidence should be used to establish appropriate
safety zones.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposal from Johnson Aviation
2. “Punch List” letter provided from consultant and staff to Airport Land Use Commission
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2013\2013-07-16\Johnson Aviation Agreement Amendment\Council Agenda Report.docx
C6 - 3
Page 1 of 3
June 20, 2013
Ms. Kim Murry
Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
Community Development Department
City of Perris San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Proposed Amendment 2 to June 23, 2010 Agreement (100-40400-7227) Airport Land
Use Planning Consulting Services, San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan
Update
Dear Ms. Murry:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Proposed Amendment 2 to the existing subject Agreement
to assist the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) with airport land use planning for the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport (“Airport” or “SBP”). The purpose of this Amendment 2 to the Agreement is to
prepare an Airport Compatibility Chapter for the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”)
Update of the General Plan and related technical work. We are immediately available to begin work on
the project.
Proposed Amendment 2 Scope of Work
The following is a list of tasks necessary for the project based upon our discussions. These tasks are
followed by a preliminary schedule and budget for each task.
Task 2.1: Prepare Airport Compatibility Chapter – LUCE Update: Consultant will prepare
a written and graphic report that will cover airport land use compatibility within the City of San
Luis Obispo. This report will become a chapter within the City’s LUCE Update of the General
Plan. Consultant will develop a suggested outline of topics to be covered in the report and will
review and revise this outline with City Staff. Generally the report will cover existing airport
facilities and operations, planned airport facilities and operations, existing airport-area zoning,
existing airport land use compatibility, planned airport-area development and proposed airport-
area zoning. The Consultant will work with City GIS staff to produce a GIS map of the existing
and proposed airport-area land use, impacts and land use compatibility based upon airport noise,
safety and overflight. The Consultant will utilize guidance from the 2011 California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport land use and
planning advisory circulars, the adopted SBP Airport Master Plan and the City’s existing and
proposed General Plan. Consultant will prepare and revise a complete draft of the report for
review and comment by City Staff.
Task 2.1 Meetings: Assumes 3 City Staff Coordination Meetings and 3 Conference Calls.
Deliverable: Original draft and 2 revisions of Airport Compatibility Chapter – LUCE Update.
Attachment 1
C6 - 4
Page 2 of 3
Task 2.2: Update Airport Operations Analysis & Noise Contours: Consultant will prepare
an analysis of existing and planned airport operations for use in developing updated airport noise
contours. This analysis will be used in Task 2.1 to assess existing and planned airport-area land
use compatibility.
o Task 2.2.1: Update Airport Operations Analysis: Consultant will analyze
historical airport operations that will be collected from SBP staff, FAA records and
supplemented with other available aviation data sources. Consultant will utilize FAA
Terminal Area Forecasts and Airport Master Plan Forecasts to develop a projection of
airport activity and operations. These projections will take into account changes in
Airport activity that has occurred since the adopted Airport Master Plan was published in
2004. Checks of airport fleet mix, time of day, runway utilization and other underlying
assumptions in the Airport Master Plan Forecast and associated noise analysis will be
conducted. Projections will be extended to 2035 to ensure consistency with the City’s
LUCE planning horizon. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted on the airport operations
analysis to test the upper and lower limits of this activity given the long-term nature of
the projection. Analyses will be sufficient to produce Community Noise Exposure Level
(CNEL) contours for the 60 dB CNEL, 65 dB CNEL and 70 dB CNEL airport noise
contours.
o Task 2.2.2: Update Airport Noise Contours: Using airport operations information
developed in Task 2.2.1, Consultant will develop existing (2012 or 2013) and future noise
contours (2035) consistent with the existing and future planning horizon years for the
City’s LUCE. Consultant will utilize the latest version of the FAA’s Integrated Noise
Model (INM) to produce existing and projected airport noise contours for the 60 dB
CNEL, 65 dB CNEL and 70 dB CNEL. These noise contours will be geo-referenced to
work within the City’s GIS system for mapping of airport noise impacts.
Task 2.2 Meetings: Assumes 4 City Staff Coordination Meetings and 6 Conference Calls.
Deliverable: Airport Operations Analysis & Noise Contours for use in Task 2.1 above.
Task 2.3: Coordinate with ALUC Subcommittee: Consultant will meet with the ALUP
Subcommittee of the SBP ALUC to cover airport land use planning, LUCE Update requirements
and to cover specific findings from Task 2.1 and Task 2.2. These meetings may also cover the
ALUP Update that is currently underway by the ALUC Subcommittee as directed by the ALUC.
Task 2.3 Meetings: Assumes 3 Meetings and 6 Conference Calls
Task 2.4: Coordinate with ALUC: Consultant will meet with the ALUC to cover airport land
use planning, LUCE Update requirements and to cover specific findings from Task 2.1 and Task
2.2. These meetings may also cover the ALUP Update that is currently underway by the ALUC
Subcommittee as directed by the ALUC.
Task 2.4 Meetings: Assumes 3 Meetings and 3 Conference Calls
Attachment 1
C6 - 5
Page 3 of 3
Task 2.5: Coordinate with City Staff, GIS, City Council: Consultant will meet with the City
Staff, Board of Supervisors, and San Luis Obispo City Council to cover airport land use planning,
LUCE Update requirements and to cover specific findings from Task 2.1 and Task 2.2.
Task 2.5 Meetings: Assumes 4 Meetings and 3 Conference Calls
Proposed Amendment 2 Schedule and Budget
This Project is assumed to start in June/July 2013 and continue for approximately 12 months. Figure 1
provides an overview of the Proposed Amendment 2 Project Schedule for each of the eight tasks outlined
above.
Figure 1: Proposed Amendment 2 Project Schedule
JunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJun
TaskTask Name
Task 2.1Prepare Airport Compatibility Chapter - LUCE Update
Task 2.2Update Airport Operations Analysis & Noise Contours
Task 2.3Coordinate with ALUC Subcommittee
Task 2.4Coordinate with ALUC
Task 2.5Coordinate with City Staff, GIS, Council, etc.
20132014
The estimated budget for this project is based upon the foregoing scope of work and schedule. It is also
based upon our discussions. Figure 2 provides an outline of the Estimated Amendment 2 Project Budget.
This budget assumes that Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 would be undertaken as soon as possible and that Tasks 2.3
through 2.5 would be undertaken as needed and as authorized through the course of the project.
Figure 2: Estimated Amendment 2 Project Budget
Task Task Name
Estimated Labor
Hours
Estimated Labor
Cost
Estimated
Expenses
Estimated Total
Budget
Task 2.1Prepare Airport Compatibility Chapter - LUCE Update 92 $21,620
Task 2.2Update Airport Operations Analysis & Noise Contours 132 $31,020
Task 2.3Coordinate with ALUC Subcommittee 32 $7,520
Task 2.4Coordinate with ALUC 24 $5,640
Task 2.5Coordinate with City Staff, GIS, Council, etc.40 $9,400
Estimated Total Budget 320 $75,200 $4,140 $79,340
I look forward to working with you on this project and we are ready to serve your needs. If you have any
questions about this Proposed Amendment 2 to our existing Agreement, please call me.
Sincerely,
Nick Johnson, Owner
Johnson Aviation
Attachment 1
C6 - 6
Attachment 2
C6 - 7
Page 1 of 4
City of San Luis Obispo
AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN UPDATE COMMENTS
Prepared May 1, 2013
Purpose: The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC” or
“Commission”) is developing an Update to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
(“SPB” or “Airport”) Airport Land Use Plan (“ALUP”) and the City of San Luis Obispo is
providing specific comments to the ALUC for their consideration during the ALUP Update.
These comments reference two key ALUC documents:
1. Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, The Airport
Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County, Adopted December, 1973, Amended
June 19, 2002, July 21, 2004, May 18, 2005.
2. Dimensional Detail of Airport Safety Zones, Airport Land Use Plan, San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport with suggested modifications for 2013, January 25, 2013 (Not
Adopted by ALUC).
The City’s comments are supported by several key reference documents and analyses. These
include:
1. California Public Utilities Code, Section 21670-21679.5.
2. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, 2011.
3. San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Master Plan, 2004.
4. San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, FAA-Approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP),
2010/2012.
5. Final EA/EIR, San Luis Obispo County Regional Master Plan Update, July 2006.
6. FAA Terminal Area Forecast, Fiscal Years 2012 to 2040, January 2013.
7. FAA “Review and Approval of Aviation Forecasts,” June 2008;
(http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/media/approval_local_forecasts_2008.pdf)
Table 1 provides a series of ALUP references and comments associated with these sections.
Also provided is the proposed resolution to these comments consistent with the key references
listed above. The City’s representatives are immediately available to discuss and resolve these
comments with the ALUC and its staff.
Table 1
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
ALUP Comments by the City of San Luis Obispo
ALUP Reference Comment Proposed Resolution
1. Section 2.3 Geographic area encompassed by the ALUP is not
specifically defined and there is no definition for the
basis of the Plan’s geographic coverage.
Define the Plan’s geographic coverage using the
FAA’s FAR Part 77 Horizontal Surface associated with
Runway 11-29 (also used for Caltrans Handbook Zone
6 – Traffic Pattern) and as mapped using GIS as the
horizontal limits of the Plan. Update the general
written description in Section 2.3 to reflect this change.
Attachment 2
C6 - 8
Page 2 of 4
Table 1
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
ALUP Comments by the City of San Luis Obispo
ALUP Reference Comment Proposed Resolution
2. Section 2.5.2.1 The policy of the ALUC is to “require voluntary
review of proposed major individual development
projects”.
Delete the word “voluntary” and use “advisory”
instead. The review is either required or is advisory in
nature. Clarify other language in section. Review of
structures listed in subsection f may be subject to FAA
review for airspace obstruction in certain locations but
in other locations, this is outside of the ALUC purview.
3. Section 2.8.1 Redevelopment which includes additional residential
density is restricted within the 55 dB airport noise
contour. This is inconsistent with City General Plan.
Update to reflect urban noise limits.
4. Section 3 Table 1: Projected Annual Airport Activity Forecasts is
outdated and substantially inconsistent with the FAA’s
Terminal Area Forecast (TAF).
Develop a reasonable 20-year forecast of annual airport
activity consistent with the FAA’s airport planning and
activity forecasting guidelines.
5. Section 4.2 Policy G-2 appears to be overly broad and allows the
ALUC to make a finding of inconsistency even if a
project meets all ALUP conditions and restrictions.
Add requirement for the ALUC (when making a
finding of incompatibility based on this policy) to
provide specific findings documenting the
incompatibilities that lead to a finding of inconsistency.
6. Section 4.3.1 Definition of the Airport environment as “quiet, rural”
is inconsistent with the portions of the airport influence
area (AIA) within the City limits and properties slated
for annexation by the City.
Properly characterize those portions of the AIA within
the existing City limits and properties slated for
annexation by the City. Designate the City and areas
identified for annexation as “Urban” for airport land
use planning purposes. Consistency with Noise
Element of the City’s General Plan is appropriate
versus ALUP imposing 55 dB as requirement.
Handbook indicates that between 60-70 dB reflects
Urban low to medium high density residential noise
levels.
7. Section 4.3.2.1.a Extremely Noise Sensitive Land Uses definition as “all
residential land uses” is excessive and not supported by
fact.
Specify those residential land uses that qualify as
“extremely” noise sensitive versus those that are
“moderately” or just “noise sensitive.” Provide full
basis for determinations consistent with federal law,
State law and the Caltrans Handbook guidelines.
8. Figure 1 Noise contours based on noise study by Brown, Buntin
Associates, April 2001 that is not available for review.
Basing noise contours on “runway capacity” is
excessive and unsupported as possible within any
reasonable planning horizon for the Airport as
evidenced by the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast
through 2040. The Airport Master Plan Forecast is also
out of date and out of compliance with the FAA Master
Plan guidelines in Advisory Circular 150/5070 -6B
Airport Master Plans and FAA’s “Review and
Approval of Aviation Forecasts,” June 2008.
Update noise contours to be consistent with updated
aviation activity forecast. Until such time as a new
forecast and noise study is completed, limit noise
analysis to the projected noise contours from the
approved Airport Master Plan given that these noise
contours are based on operations that would be 70%
higher than the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast
operations for 2040.
9. Figure 2 Single event noise contour does not justify the basis of
the chosen aircraft or specify the flight performance
characteristics used to prepare the noise contour.
Remove Figure 2 as this is an unsubstantiated and
subjective metric that is not approved under federal law
for noise planning and land use compatibility purposes.
10. Section 4.3.2.3.a
and b
Infill does not normally require that the property be
bounded on “all sides” by similar uses.
“Noise sensitive uses” category is not defined.
Revise to state, “…bounded on two sides…or approved
for future development through a Specific Plan found
to be consistent by the Airport Land Use Commission
or by the local jurisdiction in compliance with Public
Utilities Code section 21670 et seq.”
Revise to address extending perimeter of extremely
sensitive noise uses versus all uses.
11. Section 4.3.2.4 See #6 above See #6 above
Attachment 2
C6 - 9
Page 3 of 4
Table 1
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
ALUP Comments by the City of San Luis Obispo
ALUP Reference Comment Proposed Resolution
12. Section 4.3.2.5 See #6 above See #6 above
13. Section 4.3.2.6.a
and .b
Definitions for “Area of Demonstrated Noise
Incompatibility” are arbitrary and capricious. These
definitions take no facts into account when defining
noise incompatibility such as actual noise readings,
disclosure to property owners, etc
Make all necessary revisions to ALUP to be consistent
with federal law, California law and the Caltrans
Handbook guidelines.
14. Section 4.3.3 Text and Table 4 referencing less than 65 dB CNEL are
not supported by federal law, State law and the
Caltrans Handbook guidelines for noise compatibility.
Make all necessary revisions to ALUP to be consistent
with federal law, California law and the Caltrans
Handbook guidelines.
15. Section 4.3.4 Noise policies and Table 5 referencing less than 65 dB
CNEL are not supported by federal law, State law and
the Caltrans Handbook guidelines for noise
compatibility
Make all necessary revisions to ALUP to be consistent
with federal law, California law and the Caltrans
Handbook guidelines. Policy N-4 – same comments as
#13 above.
16. Section 4.4.2.3 Reserve Space should include concept of open space
easements and property.
Redefine Reserve Space to reflect the desire to retain
areas of open land around the airport. This should
recognize areas that are secured through open space
easements in addition to the other low intensity uses
listed.
17. Section 4.4.3 and
Figure 3
Figure 3 and the associated references are inconsistent
with the methodology established in the Caltrans
Handbook for establishing safety zones and reflecting
the fact that aviation safety risk is higher close to the
runway ends and along the runway centerlines
extended. SBP Airport is similar to and consistent with
the safety profile of other regional airports in California
of similar size and activity. Figure 3 has also been
found by the City and the ALUC to be geographically
incorrect relative to the runways and the surrounding
land uses.
Revise Figure 3 to properly depict safety zones relative
to the Runways 11-29 and 7-25 consistent with the
FAA-approved ALP. Revise Figure 3 to eliminate
Safety Zones S-1b and S-1c as these zones are
inconsistent with the methodology set forth in the
Caltrans Handbook and do not reflect the actual safety
risk in the airport vicinity. Revise Figure 3 to modify
Safety Zone S-2 to be consistent with the definition for
Zone 6 – Traffic Pattern as defined in the Caltrans
Handbook.
18. Section 4.4.4.1.c Sentence 2 incorrectly states, “It is likely, however,
that future airport operations will see an increase in the
use of Runway 7-25 as a means of increasing the flow
of traffic during peak periods.”
Properly characterize Runway 7-25 consistent with its
purpose and use on the Airport as a limited-use runway
specifically for small aircraft during wind conditions
favoring Runway 7-25. Arrivals, departures and closed
traffic patterns use the airspace corridors associated
with Runway 11-29 even when landing or departing
Runway 7-25.
19. Section 4.4.4.2.b Safety Area S-1b is inconsistent with the methodology
established in the Caltrans Handbook for establishing
safety zones and reflecting the fact that aviation safety
risk is higher close to the runway ends and along the
runway centerlines extended. Potential aviation safety
hazards stated in this section to not translate into higher
safety risk in the areas encompassed by Safety Area S-
1b
Eliminate Section 4.4.4.2.b.
20. Section 4.4.4.2.c Safety Area S-1c is inconsistent with the methodology
established in the Caltrans Handbook for establishing
safety zones and reflecting the fact that aviation safety
risk is higher close to the runway ends and along the
runway centerlines extended. Potential aviation safety
hazards stated in this section to not translate into higher
safety risk in the areas encompassed by Safety Area S-
1c
Eliminate Section 4.4.4.2.c.
Attachment 2
C6 - 10
Page 4 of 4
Table 1
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
ALUP Comments by the City of San Luis Obispo
ALUP Reference Comment Proposed Resolution
21. Section 4.4.5 Density adjustment section is confusing and
complicated. Table 6 and Figure 4 refer to reserve
space/area interchangeably and there is some confusion
regarding more restrictive requirement area within
reserve space/area.
Update to simplify criteria by which ALUC will
consider proposals that involve clustered development
and open areas in perpetuity as means to address
potential density adjustments. Eliminate overlapping
provisions for DAP, CDZ, ACOS and simplify concept
of allowing greater density or uses where development
has been concentrated in areas less susceptible to
noise/safety issues when accompanied by areas of open
space.
22. Section 4.4.6 Tables 7 and 8 and associated Figures 6, 7 and 8 reflect
unreasonable planning requirements for residential
development in Airport Safety Areas S-1b, S-1c and S-
2.
Revise Tables 7 and 8 and associated Figures 6, 7 and
8. Use Table 4E of the Handbook to determine typical
intensities of non-residential uses; and replace all
density restrictions in S-2 with airport influence area
disclosure.
23. Section 4.5.2.1 Figures 9 and 10 are inconsistent with FAR Part 77 and
actual overflight patterns.
Update Figures 9 and 10 to be consistent with updated
AIA as suggested in Comment #13. Update Figure 10
to properly depict instrument arrival and departure
paths consistent with actual overflight corridors.
24. Section 5.1 Intended use prohibits development of noise sensitive
uses in “an acoustic environment substantially similar
to an area of demonstrated noise incompatibility”.
Definitions for “Area of Demonstrated Noise
Incompatibility” are arbitrary and capricious. These
definitions take no facts into account when defining
noise incompatibility such as actual noise readings,
disclosure to property owners, etc
Make all necessary revisions to ALUP to be consistent
with federal law, California law and the Caltrans
Handbook guidelines.
25. Section 5.3 Land Use Compatibility Table for both noise and
aviation safety areas summarize policies and land use
restrictions identified in previous comments.
Update Land Use Compatibility Table consistent with
suggested changes to corresponding policies and land
use restrictions identified in previous comments.
26. Section 6 Section 6 is inconsistent with noise and safety
standards contained in the Caltrans Handbook, State
law and federal law and guidelines.
Remove reference to MASP. City will make changes
to MASP in response to updated ALUP safety zones
and revised noise contours consistent with reasonable
forecast of aviation operations.
27. Section 7.5.b State law has changed to only require a two-thirds vote
of a quorum of its members.
Revise text to insert, “…overrule the ALUC’s
determination by at least a two-thirds vote of a quorum
of its members…”
28. ACOS Plan See comments on #21. See comments on #21.
Attachment 2
C6 - 11
Page intentionally left
blank.
C6 - 12