HomeMy WebLinkAboutr 10585 Overruling County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Commission related to LUCERESOLUTION NO. 10585 (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, OVERRULING THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC)
DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USE AND
CIRCULATION ELEMENT (LUCE) UPDATE AND RELATED AIRPORT
OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN (ALUP)
WHEREAS, the City was awarded a Strategic Growth Council Grant and the work scope
authorized by Council includes grant -focus items:
• Community input regarding the physical, social, economic, cultural and
environmental character of the City in order to develop a vision of San Luis Obispo
through 2035.
• A comprehensive guide for decision - making based on land use, design, circulation
and access, sustainability and the preservation of the quality of life in the community.
• Policies that balance development and conservation to preserve the City's natural
beauty, unique character and heritage while supporting housing opportunities, a
vibrant economy and addressing disadvantaged communities.
• Evaluate consistency with the Regional Blueprint and policies that guide development
of a Sustainable Communities Strategy in collaboration with SLOCOG.
• Opportunities to create Complete Streets /neighborhoods and develop programs to
achieve them.
• Identify areas appropriate for residential infill and densification.
• Identify the circulation system that is needed to appropriately balance the
community's values and the need for growth
• Identify ways to achieve more affordable housing.
• Promote energy efficiency & conservation and incorporate Climate Action Plan
strategies.
• Identify transit opportunities that may be enhanced to accommodate Transit Oriented
Developments (TOD).
• Identify programs to help migrate to transportation modes other than the single
occupant vehicle.
• Identify healthy food locations and opportunities for pedestrian and bike access.
WHEREAS, the City desires to update its General Plan Land Use and Circulation
Elements (LUCE) and update its zoning regulations with policies to guide development based on
logical infill development patterns that discourage urban sprawl and provide for safe, high
quality residential neighborhoods and supportive amenities and services; and
WHEREAS, the policies and programs proposed in the LUCE Update reflect the
sentiment of the community as a whole. Since the LUCE Update process was initiated in
January 2012, there have been 34 LUCE Task Force (TF -LUCE) meetings; 12 Planning
R 10585
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 2
Commission hearings and 19 City Council hearings held to refine the LUCE project description
and ensure that its policies and programs reflect the goals and desires of the community. These
efforts were informed by input from a community -wide survey and public workshops held
during this time; and
WHEREAS, the area where most of the future growth opportunities lie is in the southern
part of San Luis Obispo's Sphere of Influence; and
WHEREAS, the City retained a qualified airport land use compatibility consultant to
prepare an Airport Land Use Compatibility Report to ensure that the proposed physical growth
opportunities and policies and programs contained in the LUCE Update, as well as implementing
zoning regulations amendments, are in compliance with and consistent with Article 3.5 of the
State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670, the respective California Public Utilities Code
sections and guidance of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook; and
WHEREAS, the LUCE Update does not adversely impact the public health, welfare and
safety or airport operations, based on said Compatibility Report, Guidelines contained in the
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR
certified by the City Council on September 16, 2014); and
WHEREAS, the Airport has an FAA - approved Master Plan (AMP) and Airport Layout
Plan (ALP); and
WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for the County has adopted and
approved an Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the Airport; and
WHEREAS, Since 2012, the City has met extensively with the ALUC and encouraged
the ALUC to update the ALUP and has provided extensive technical and policy comments to the
ALUC along with offers of modern, accurate GIS mapping, FAA - required noise model expertise
and other related services in anticipation of the City's long projected timeline for completion of
its LUCE Update process; and
WHEREAS, said ALUP is outdated and is not consistent with the AMP and ALP for the
Airport and contains maps and policies that are ambiguous and not based on accurate data and
supported by substantial evidence; and
WHEREAS, the effort to provide information to the ALUC and meet with them was
intended to reconcile and resolve technical issues that have been discussed between the ALUC
and the City dating back to early 2002; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676, the City referred the draft
LUCE Update to the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on June
13, 2014 for a determination as to whether the draft LUCE Update and related Airport Overlay
Zone zoning regulations amendments are consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport
Land Use Plan (ALUP); and
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 3
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2014, the ALUC conducted a public hearing and determined
that the draft LUCE Update and implementing AOZ zoning amendments are not consistent with
the ALUP with regard to the types and densities of development that could occur within portions
of the airport area; and
WHEREAS, further pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676, the City may after
a public hearing on the matter propose to overrule the ALUC determination by a two - thirds vote
of the City Council, if the City Council makes specific findings that the proposed action is
consistent with the purposes set forth in Section 21670 of the California Public Utilities Code;
and
WHEREAS, consistent with Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code the City has
provided the ALUC and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics with a copy of the City Council's draft
findings of Intent to Overrule at least 45 days prior to the final decision to overrule; and
WHEREAS, comments which have been received from the ALUC and Caltrans Division
of Aeronautics have been duly considered and are included in the final record of decision for the
Council's consideration to overrule.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby overrules the Airport Land Use Commission's
findings of inconsistency based on the above recitals, which are hereby adopted as findings of
the Council, and the additional findings contained in Exhibit A hereto, consistent with Section
21676(b) of the State Aeronautics Act.
SECTION 2. The City Council declares that should any provision, section, paragraph,
sentence, or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections,
paragraphs, sentences and words of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. Exhibit B and Exhibit C to this Resolution include the comments received
from the ALUC and CalTrans and the City's responses and are incorporated into and are relied
upon as a basis for this Resolution.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this Resolution.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 4
Upon motion of Council Member Christianson, seconded by Council Member Rivoire, and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Christianson and Rivoire,
Vice Mayor Ashbaugh and Mayor Marx
NOES: Council Member Carpenter
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 9th day of December 2014.
Mayor J Marx
V
ATTEST:
tho J. e'ia
City Clerk
Ev
J' Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this j&+- day of `f c�,,,,,��.� 70 I q
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 5
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Exhibit A
Findings Supporting the City of San Luis Obispo's Overrule of the
Airport Land Use Commission's Determination that the Draft Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update and associated Airport
Overlay Zoning Regulations are Inconsistent with the
Airport Land Use Plan
1. The policies and programs of the LUCE Update, including the provisions of the
Airport Overlay Zoning regulations, are based on the City of San Luis Obispo General
Plan Update, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), and Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report (Compatibility Report) prepared by Johnson Aviation dated
August 11, 2014. The Compatibility Report, which contains the supporting technical
analysis, provides the substantive information that bridges the analytical gap between
the raw data and ultimate decision regarding the proposed LUCE policies. The
Compatibility Report, together with the LUCE Update and provisions of the Airport
Overlay Zoning regulations demonstrate that the proposed LUCE Update is consistent
with the purposes of the statutes as set forth in Section 21670 et seq. of the State
Aeronautics Act (SAA), as set forth in Division 9 (Aviation) of the Public Utilities
Code (PUC).
2. Section 21670(a) establishes legislative findings that it is in the best interest of the
public to provide for the orderly development of:
a. "...each public use airport in this state ...."
b. "...the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and
objectives of the California noise standards..." and
c. "...the area surrounding these airports ... to prevent the creation of new noise and
safety problems."
In that context, the statute provides that its purpose is "...to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare by ensuring... ":
d. "...the orderly expansion of airport ...."
e. ".by ...the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to
excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the
extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
3. Although findings are not required to address each of these public interests and
statutory purposes point by point, collectively, all are addressed in the following
findings and demonstrate that the LUCE Update, including the provisions of the
Airport Overlay Zoning regulations, are consistent with the public interest and the
purposes of the Act.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 6
Exhibit A
4. As evidenced by the Compatibility Report, the Airport- related policies and programs
contained in the Draft Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) and implementing
Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) zoning regulations provide adequate measures to
"protect public health, safety and welfare" and "minimize the public's exposure to
excessive noise and safety hazards" near the Airport "to the extent that these areas are
not already devoted to incompatible uses," pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section
21670(a)(2).
5. Historically, the City deferred to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and its
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for airport land use compatibility determinations. In
recent years, however, errors and omissions within the ALUP have become apparent
and, in some instances, have been acknowledged by the ALUC. The data developed
by the City demonstrates the ALUP to be flawed and outdated, with policies that are
not supported by objectively verifiable data. The LUCE update was developed in
reliance of verifiable factual and technical data and adopted airport operations data.
The LUCE update proposes to vary from land use designations and restrictions
contained in the adopted ALUP for limited areas in the ALUP boundary only to the
extent consistent with guidance from the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and
the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act.
6. The "Airport Planning Area" defined within the Existing ALUP is identical to the
planning area identified in the ALUP as originally adopted in 1977. In 37 years, the
safety zones in this Existing ALUP have not been updated to be consistent with actual
aircraft accident and safety risk analysis research as originally published in the
Handbook by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics in 1992, expanded and revalidated
in 2002, and further expanded and revalidated in 2011.
7. Safety zones designated in the existing ALUP are not accurately aligned with the San
Luis Obispo Airport runways and they do not reflect runway length changes
constructed in recent years pursuant to a San Luis Obispo County- adopted airport
master plan, environmental assessment (EA) /environmental impact report (EIR) and
depicted on the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The ALUC has
acknowledged that the ALUP requires update and has begun the process to do so.
8. State law requires ALUPs to be consistent with the Airport Master Plan (AMP) or the
FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The San Luis Obispo AMP and ALP
reflect the same County- adopted, long -range development plan for the Airport, while
the existing ALUP is not consistent with the AMP or the ALP. Thus, the ALUP does
not accurately incorporate verifiable airport operations and planning data and,
therefore, does not provide an objectively verifiable basis on which to develop and
impose airport noise and land use restrictions within the City. The land use
designations, restrictions and performance standards set forth in the LUCE and AOZ
account for and respect the foregoing data to protect the public health, safety and
welfare, reasonably foreseeable airport operations and orderly expansion of the airport.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 7
Exhibit A
9. ALUCs are not empowered to determine what the future airfield configuration, airport
role, or activity levels will be. State statutes direct that an ALUP must be based upon
an Airport Master Plan.
10. While planners are not mandated to use the sample zones provided in the Handbook,
they are mandated to create zones that have easily definable geometric shapes, are as
compact as possible, have a distinct progression in the degree of risk represented, and
are limited to a realistic number (five or six should be adequate in most cases). The
ALUP's safety zones require complex trigonometry to define, show an increasing
geographic area of risk at further distances from the airport, and contain zones that are
not described by the Handbook and vary significantly from recommended safety zones
of the Handbook without a nexus to factors which would warrant adjustment of the
safety zones as recommended in the Handbook Table 3A adjustment factors. The
ALUP safety zones do not directly correlate to actual aircraft accident and safety risk
analysis research as originally published in the Handbook by Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics in 1992, expanded and revalidated in 2002 and further expanded and
revalidated in 2011. A review of accident data at San Luis Obispo airport shows that
virtually all accidents have occurred in recommended Handbook safety zones. The
LUCE policies in combination with the AOZ provide a framework that uses the ALUP
as a standard of review for zones S -la and the RPZ and uses guidance from the
Handbook for the areas of overrule in zones S -lb, S -lc and S -2, relying on verifiable
data to protect the public health and safety while also protecting future airport
operations.
11. Since January 2012, the City of San Luis Obispo has encouraged the ALUC to update
the ALUP for consistency with the SAA, PUC and Handbook guidance in an open and
collaborative manner based on factual information and realistic airport operations
scenarios. While the ALUC, acknowledges, in some instances, that revisions,
corrections and updates consistent with changed circumstances and verifiable data are
needed, such an update has not been completed in a relevant timeframe for completion
and scope of the ALUC's current ALUP update process remain uncertain.
12. The policies and programs set forth in the proposed LUCE Update and implementing
Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) are based upon guidance from the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook and are consistent with the guidelines recommended by
Caltrans to specifically fulfill the purposes of Article 3.5 of the State Aeronautics Act
as stated in Section 21670. The AOZ reflects the boundaries and safety zones
contained in the ALUP and contains land use and development requirements,
restrictions and performance standards supported by verifiable data and consistent
with Handbook guidance and the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act.
13. The City went through an extensive effort to ensure that the City's LUCE policies: (1)
are consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, as stated in Section
21670; (2) are consistent with guidance of the Caltrans Handbook's policies,
recommendations, analysis and research relating to safety, overflight, airspace
protection and noise; and (3) that the LUCE policies do not adversely impact the
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 8
Exhibit A
public health, welfare and safety or airport operations. All of the policies in the LUCE
are based on substantial evidence provided in the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Report included as a technical appendix to the LUCE Update EIR and incorporated by
reference. This report includes a careful examination of the existing and proposed
airport facilities, operations, and local procedures; weather, topography, aircraft
accidents and incidents. The Compatibility Report also includes a careful examination
of the County- approved Airport Master Plan, FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan and
application of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 obstruction analysis. The
report also includes recommendations for LUCE policies consistent with the purposes
of the State Aeronautics Act and guidelines provided in the Caltrans Handbook.
Therefore, the LUCE policies and programs and associated implementation through
creation of an Airport Overlay Zone are based on substantial evidence and are
consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in
Section 21670, to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety
hazards and to protect public health, welfare and safety and existing and future airport
operations.
14. The LUCE Update and implementing Airport Overlay Zoning regulations incorporate
and are fully consistent with the current Caltrans Handbook standards for addressing
safety, noise, and overflight and airspace protection and also include accurate
Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping, current FAA operations and planning
standards and significant airport planning information from the County- adopted
Airport Master Plan and FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan. The City has also
developed complete technical airport operational information through its Airport Land
Use Compatibility Report fully considering FAA - regulated and approved operations
and procedures. The LUCE and Airport Overlay Zone reflect the ALUP safety zones
and incorporate land use limitations in zones RPZ and S -la. For limited areas outside
of approved specific plans within the ALUP, the City has incorporated land use
designations and development standards consistent with the Caltrans Handbook
density and intensity of use guidance to safety zones S -lb, S -lc and S -2 to ensure
safety and compatibility of existing and proposed land uses and to prevent future
development of incompatible land uses.
15. Airport Safety policies and programs contained in the LUCE Update are consistent
with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines (See Handbook,
Chapter 3, Page 3 -15 through 3 -27; Chapter 4, Pages 4 -17 through 4 -34) and
substantiated by the FAA - approved San Luis Obispo County Airport Master Plan
activity forecasts because policies and programs are consistent with the ALUP safety
zones RPZ and S -la and portions of S -lb and S -lc as reflected in approved specific
plans found consistent with the ALUP. Outside of these areas, the LUCE policies,
programs and implementation through the AOZ address development standards to
regulate development intensity, density, and prohibited uses; infill development
standards, height limitations and other hazards to flight; noise, buyer awareness
measures, avigation easements; airspace obstruction; open land; non - conforming uses
and reconstruction; and City review. These policies and programs meet the guidance
and direction provided in sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 of the California Airport
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 9
Exhibit A
Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and use the FAA - approved Airport Master
Plan forecasts of aviation activity as the best reasonably foreseeable projection of
ultimate aviation activity sufficient for long -term safety planning purposes (See
Handbook, Pages 3 -7 through 3 -8). Public Utility Code §21675(a) requires land use
compatibility plans to be based on the Airport Master Plan for the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport.
16. The City's LUCE is consistent with the overall goal of the State Aeronautics Act to
minimize incompatible land uses within the vicinity of the Airport. The LUCE
protects public health, welfare and safety and existing and future airport operations
because it includes measures to reduce or eliminate any potentially significant noise or
safety impacts, as documented in the Compatibility Report and LUCE Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), through the implementation of a combination of
LUCE policies and the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ), which reflects the boundaries
and Safety Zones in the current ALUP. The Caltrans Handbook goes further to
delineate the characteristics of "ideal" safety zones such as "easily definable geometric
shapes," a limited number of five or six zones, a distinct progression in the degree of
safety risk further from the runway, providing that "each zone should be as compact as
possible." The City's LUCE and the AOZ accomplish this ideal by incorporating
policies, programs and development standards consistent with those guidelines, while
reflecting the existing ALUP safety zone configurations until the ALUC has
completed its update of the ALUP and associated environmental analysis.
Furthermore, the City, unlike the ALUP, is reflecting noise contours in the Noise
Element and AOZ which are consistent with the verified and validated noise contours
from the County- approved Airport Master Plan EIR using the FAA's latest version of
the Integrated Noise Model (INM) and using 60 dB CNEL as the limit for residential
development — a more conservative standard than the California airport noise standard
in Section 5000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations (Title 21, Division 2.5,
Chapter 6).
17. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670(a)(b), the Policies and Programs
contained in the LUCE Update ensure the orderly expansion of the airport and include
land use controls that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety
hazards within areas around the airport to the extent that these areas are not already
devoted to incompatible uses.
18. The LUCE update and implementing Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ), provide for a
progression of land use density and intensity, outside of the RPZ and S -la and specific
plan areas, based on the degree of reduced noise and safety risk with distance away
from the runways, consistent with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
guidelines. The FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) dated November 4, 2010
depicts the ultimate planned development of SBP facilities, including runways and
associated Runway Protection Zones. The LUCE update and associated
implementation regulations apply noise restrictions based on the FAA - approved
Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity based upon a 20 -year planning
horizon. The FAA - approved Master Plan forecast is the best reasonably foreseeable
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 10
Exhibit A
projection of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for long -term noise planning
purposes.
19. Policies and programs contained in the City's LUCE Update and implementing zoning
regulations do not replace or usurp the ALUC's authority because the LUCE policies
and programs only apply within limited areas of the ALUP safety zones within the city
and address land use designations and development standards within the City
consistent with the City's local land use authority. Moreover, neither the LUCE nor
the AOZ propose to establish new Airport Safety Zones or Airport Safety Zones that
differ from the ALUP Safety Zones. In fact, the AOZ refers to the ALUP Safety
Zones, and defers to the ALUP relative to uses within Zones RPZ and S - la, where the
City finds that land use restrictions consistent with those included in the ALUP are
reasonably supported by factual information and verifiable data. The City's action to
overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency is limited to noise standards and
land uses that the City finds should be permissible within portions of ALUP Safety
Zones S -lb, S -2 and S -lc. In addition, all future projects involving a legislative act,
such as a general plan amendment, specific plan or zone change, will be subject to
referral to the ALUC for an ALUP consistency determination, as reflected in the Land
Use Element Chapter 7 and implementing Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.030(C).
20. The ALUP contains land use criteria for an S -1 b Maneuvering Zone and S -1 c Zone
that have no equivalent in the Handbook Guidelines, and an S -2 Zone that is larger in
size and contains unduly restrictive use limitations compared to that recommended by
the Handbook guidelines (See Handbook, Page 3 -15 through Page 3 -16). The City
finds that the ALUC has provided no verifiable facts or data supporting the necessity
of the ALUP's land use restrictions related to the configuration to protect public
health, safety or welfare or existing or future airport operations. The City further finds
that the City's overrule of the ALUC's inconsistency determination in order to
implement the LUCE update and AOZ standards for land use within these areas within
the City is supported by factual and objectively verifiable data that demonstrates that
the permissible land uses and restrictions and applicable noise standards contained in
the LUCE and the AOZ are appropriate and protect the public health, safety and
welfare and existing and future airport operations.
21. The City finds that the application of unnecessary land use restrictions that are not
substantiated by verifiable data is not in the community's interest because such
unjustified restrictions limit the City's ability to accommodate desired infill growth
and to accomplish smart growth and environmental protection objectives of the City.
Therefore, the City will opt to exercise its rights under Public Utilities Code Section
21676(b) to overrule the ALUC's inconsistency determination with regard to the land
use criteria for zones S -lb, S -2 and S -lc, outside of existing specific plans previously
found by the ALUC to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. The City's
overrule is supported by the fact that the combination of LUCE policies and the
Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) provide standards for development that protect public
health and safety consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and
consistent with guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook as
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 11
Exhibit A
evidenced in the analysis shown in the Airport Compatibility Report incorporated by
reference.
22. The policies, programs and implementation of the LUCE include standards that
address development intensity, density, and prohibited uses; infill development
standards, height limitations and other hazards to flight; noise, buyer awareness
measures, avigation easements; airspace obstruction; open land; non - conforming uses
and reconstruction; and City review. The Compatibility Report section 4.3 evaluated
adjustment factors and determined that no safety zone adjustments are required to
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook safety zone configurations for SBP.
Nonetheless, the LUCE and implementing AOZ reflect and do not attempt to redefine
the existing ALUP safety zone configurations, recognizing that the ALUC is in the
process of its update of the ALUP and associated environmental analysis. Evaluation
and recommendations listed in Section 9 of the Compatibility Report indicate that
compliance with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidance for
uses appropriate to each safety zone meets the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act
§21674.7(b) direction to protect public safety and to discourage incompatible land
uses around the airport.
23. The planned facilities identified in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
(SBP) Master Plan, and on the FAA - approved ALP accommodate forecast demand.
However, as noted in the SBP Master Plan Update, "the cost - effective, efficient, and
orderly development of an airport should rely more upon actual demand at an airport
than on a time -based forecast figure" " (See Chapter 5 of the Airport Compatibility
Report for a complete discussion of and validation of the AMP Forecast for use as
intended under the PUC Section 21675, "that reflects the anticipated growth of the
airport during at least the next 20 years. ". This is why the planning of facilities at SBP
is based on milestones of short, intermediate, and long term aviation activity versus
actual years even though the Master Plan forecast covered 20 years from when it was
published in 2004. The planning of facilities at SBP, which incorporates milestones of
short, intermediate, and long term aviation activity, indicates when facilities will
respond to aviation activity in addition to the anticipated forecast horizon.
24. The recession that began in 2007 had a great impact on air travel. SBP lost nearly
34% of its enplanements as carriers responded to the rising price of oil, declining
demand and realigned air service networks. Actual annual aviation activity at SBP has
been significantly lower than the SBP Master Plan forecasts. Even though the SBP
Master Plan Update forecast is based on aggressive growth at SBP, and trends that are
not in line with existing activity and the FAA forecast, facilities called for in the
Master Plan support the ultimate physical development of the Airport, which is shown
in the County- adopted Master Plan and on the FAA - approved ALP. The City's
preferred use of the SBP Master Plan Update forecast for purposes of long -term noise
impacts instead of the unsubstantiated noise contours in the ALUP is consistent with
the Handbook guidance that, "[e]ven when the forecasts and contours in a master plan
do not extend at least 20 years into the future, information contained about the
intended role and future physical characteristics of the airport is needed for
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 12
Exhibit A
compatibility planning (See Handbook, Pages 3 -7, 3 -8)." Actual annual aviation
activity at SBP was 66% lower than the SBP Master Plan forecast for 2012, and this
gap grew larger in 2013 with even lower SBP aircraft operations. Thus, the Master
Plan forecast and associated noise contours form a conservative base of information to
use when considering long term compatibility of land uses through the LUCE update.
The proposed land uses and policies consider and reflect planning policies, objectives
and land use regulations consistent with the AMP.
25. The SBP Master Plan Update forecast greatly exceeds the current actual operations
activity, as well as the FAA's Terminal Area Forecast of operations that extends out to
2040. As per FAA AC 150/5070 -6B, Airport Master Plans, master plan forecasts for
operations, based aircraft, and enplanements are considered to be consistent with the
Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) if they differ by less than 10 percent in the 5 -year
forecast and 15 percent in the 10 -year period for "other commercial service airports"
like SBP. The current Master Plan for SBP differs more than 10% in the 5 -year
forecast and 15% in the 10 -year forecast, which indicates that the operational
projections in the Master Plan are more aggressive than likely and may be used as a
very long term conservative projection of potential aircraft operational noise. Thus,
the Master Plan forecast and associated noise contours form a conservative base of
information and have been used when considering long term compatibility of land uses
through the LUCE update. (See Handbook, Pages 3 -7, 3 -8).
l`inclizzgs that LUCE Polices and Implementing Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) Regulations
Provide Adequate Protection for Noise, Safety, Overflight and Airspace Protection
Noise
26. The City is concerned that incorporation into the LUCE of limitations on new
residential and other noise sensitive uses to areas outside the 55 dB CNEL noise
contour without adequate data to support such limitations may be subject to legal
challenge as a taking of property without just compensation, in light of FAA and
Caltrans' guidelines with respect to land use compatibility and the lack of data
supporting the application of the 55 dB standard to urban and suburban areas such as
San Luis Obispo. The LUCE update relies on the approved Airport Master Plan and
associated EIR to identify the noise contours applicable to the community of San Luis
Obispo. Section 6.3 of the Compatibility Report uses the Airport Master Plan
operational forecasts to evaluate the existing and projected noise environment for the
community. The LUCE update and implementation through the Airport Overlay Zone
apply the 60 dB CNEL contour as the maximum acceptable noise exposure for new
residential uses consistent with existing limitations throughout the rest of the City.
This complies with guidance provided in Table 4B in the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook, which indicates that 60 dB CNEL is suitable for new
development around most airports and is particularly appropriate in mild climates
where windows are often open.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 13
Exhibit A
27. Despite a Public Records Act request of the ALUC and direct outreach to the original
consultant noted on Figures 1 and 2 in the existing ALUP, the ALUC has been unable
to produce any factual or data supported basis for the noise analysis and related
technical assumptions (projected numbers of operations, types of aircraft, time of day
of operations) used to create the noise contours reflected in the existing ALUP or to
support related land use restrictions. Noise contours shown in Figure 1 of the ALUP
indicate contours are based on a hypothetical maximum runway capacity, which is
inconsistent with Public Utility Code §21675(a) requiring that the ALUP be based
upon the most recent Airport Master Plan. Therefore, incorporation of the ALUP
noise contours and related development restrictions into the LUCE update and
associated Airport Overlay Zone implementation to is not appropriate. The LUCE
update and associated implementation relies on the approved Airport Master Plan and
associated EIR aircraft operations forecast noise contours as those applicable to the
community of San Luis Obispo in compliance with the Public Utilities Code
§21675(a) and the guidance provided in the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook Chapters 3 and 4.
28. Table 413, Noise Compatibility Criteria Alternatives (New Residential Land Uses)
from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook establishes the three CNEL
values commonly used as the limit for acceptable residential noise exposure and their
applicability. On Page 4 -7, the Handbook states that areas with a noise level of 60 dB
CNEL are "suitable for new residential development around most airports" and
"particularly appropriate in mild climates where windows are often open."
29. The City's proposed airport noise standard for new residential uses is 60 dB CNEL,
consistent with the guidance of the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
recommendations for urban and suburban areas as shown on page 4 -8 in Figure 4A.
The Handbook shows 60 dB CNEL as a typical setting for urban low- density
residential uses. Further, the City's proposed noise standard is based upon verified
and validated noise contours from the County- approved Airport Master Plan EIR using
the FAA's latest version of the Integrated Noise Model (INM). (See Airport
Compatibility Report Section 6, Airport Noise, Pages 42 -52).
30. The aircraft noise analysis prepared for the Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact
Report is documented in Chapter 5 of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The assumptions
regarding aircraft operations amounts, types, spatial and temporal distribution is
reflected in Figure 5.1 -6 of the AMP EIR. The AMP EIR operations assumptions
were entered into the Integrated Noise Model version 7.Od and generated noise
contours that were compared to the AMP EIR on page 52 of the Compatibility Report.
The resultant noise contours confirmed the AMP EIR information as an accurate
mapping of the long term noise impact of the airport's aviation activity that is tied to
the ultimate facilities development depicted in the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan.
The City's use of the Airport Master Plan noise contours for purposes of development
of its LUCE Update noise contours and the application of a 60 dB CNEL exterior
noise standard and 45 dB CNEL interior noise standard for new residential uses is
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 14
Exhibit A
appropriate and is consistent with FAA and State aircraft noise planning standards
(Handbook, Page 4 -46).
31. The aircraft noise analysis prepared for the SBP Master Plan Update in the 2006
EA/EIR provides an accurate mapping (See Airport Compatibility Report, Pages 51-
52) of the long term noise impact of the Airport's aviation activity that is tied to the
ultimate facilities development depicted in the FAA - approved ALP. The City's use of
the Airport Master Plan noise contours for purposes of development of its LUCE
Update noise contours and the application of a 60 dB CNEL exterior noise standard
and 45 dB CNEL interior noise standard for new residential uses is appropriate and is
consistent with FAA and State aircraft noise planning standards (Handbook, Page 4-
46). The SBP EA/EIR found no existing or planned noise impact on the surrounding
community as a result of the full build out of the Airport.
32. The ALUP noise contours are not based on the SBP Master Plan forecast operations
but rather on a theoretical "capacity" of the runways with no connection to the
underlying demand or proven usage characteristics of the runways, or capacity of
existing or proposed support facilities resulting in an unrealistic and vastly over - stated
noise impact. The polices, programs and development standards in the City's LUCE
and AOZ are appropriately based on the SBP Master Plan forecast operations with all
of the facts and assumptions clearly available in the SBP EA /EIR for objective review.
The ALUC does not present the underlying assumptions or technical facts used to
create the noise contours provided in the ALUP, and have not been able to make this
information available for review. The LUCE update and associated implementation
relies on the approved Airport Master Plan and associated EIR aircraft operations
forecast noise contours as those applicable to the community of San Luis Obispo in
compliance with the Public Utilities Code §21675(a) and guidance from the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Chapters 3 and 4.
33. Seventy -five percent of all aircraft noise complaints collected by County Airport
officials over the last five years were generated by three individuals as provided in a
report from County Airport staff via a public records act request from the City of San
Luis Obispo.
34. The San Luis Obispo Regional Airport is not included in the list of ten "Noise
Problem" Airports in California as defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title
21, Section 5000, et seq. The City's application of a 60 dB CNEL noise standard for
residential uses is below the 65 db CNEL aircraft noise contour, which is the FAA
standard for urban residential areas defined as "noise problem" airports.
35. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors has not applied to the State to have
SBP defined as a "Noise Problem" Airport in California as defined in the California
Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 5000 et seq.
Safety
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 15
Exhibit A
36. Review processes and height restrictions supported through the LUCE and Airport
Overlay Zone require compliance with FAA Part 77 criteria. Therefore, the Draft
LUCE update and associated implementation through an Airport Overlay Zone, which
reflect the Handbook guidance for the most recent Airport Master Plan, will not
impact the Airport's ability to qualify for payments from the Aeronautics Account to
support airport development as stated in PUC § 21683 and 21688.
37. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook uses Runway Protection Zones
(RPZs) and certain Part 77 surfaces to help delineate recommended airspace protection
zones around airports. The Draft LUCE update and associated implementation
through an Airport Overlay Zone incorporate compliance with Part 77 surfaces and
other requirements to address potential obstructions near the airport by deferring to the
ALUP. Public Utilities Code §21403(c) provides the right of aircraft to safe access to
public airports including the right of flight within the zone of approach without hazard.
This zone of approach shall conform to Part 77 regulations which are incorporated into
the LUCE and Airport Overlay Zone.
38. Safety provisions to address aircraft in distress as specified in the Handbook's
"Guidelines for Extent of Open Land Near Airports" criteria (beginning on Page 4 -31
of the Handbook) is addressed in the Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.090. This
section calls out open land areas already planned for and secured in addition to open
land objectives for areas within the ALUP boundaries, and refers to the ALUP
direction for size, orientation and topography.
39. The instrument procedures at SBP are found in the Airport Master Plan beginning on
Page 1 -14 provide straight -in final approaches to Runway 11 and Runway 29 with
vertical guidance for pilots flying in instrument weather conditions creating the safest
approach possible and avoiding the need to use circling approaches (See Airport Land
Use Compatibility Report, Page 27 and Handbook, Page 3 -22). Since no adjustments
to flight routes have been identified for the airport, the configuration and use
limitations associated with the Handbook - defined safety zones is adequate for the San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. Airport Overlay Zone Chapter 17.57 reflects
the ALUP safety zones and associated land use standards for the RPZ and S -la zones
and areas within current specific plans that have been found consistent with the ALUP.
The land use standards for the limited areas within Safety Zones S -lb, S -lc and S -2
outside of those areas described in the previous sentence are consistent with guidance
from Chapter 4 of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook safety zones 1-
6 and land use limitations.
40. The historical accident data at SBP is insufficient to draw conclusions about risk of
accidents in the future based on frequency and consequence. However, the Handbook
aggregates all data regarding accidents and incidents and integrates this data into the
recommended safety zones. Each Handbook - identified safety zone represents a
relatively uniform risk level that is distinct from the other zones based upon
mathematical analysis of the accident location data. Appendix E of the 2011
Handbook contains updated aircraft accident information that was compared to 2002
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 16
Exhibit A
data in order to determine if changes to the Handbook safety zones were warranted.
As documented on page 3 -16 of the Handbook, evidence from analysis of the new data
was insufficient to conclude that geographic distribution of accidents had significantly
changed and therefore the basis for the suggested zones had not changed. The LUCE
update and associated implementation through an Airport Overlay Zone applies the
ALUP safety zone boundaries and uses limitations within those boundaries consistent
with the ALUP in the RPZ and S -la zones and as recommended by the Handbook
guidance (See Handbook, Pages 4 -20 through 4 -25) for limited portions of the S -lb, S-
1 c and S -2 safety zones until the ALUC has completed its update of the ALUP and
associated environmental analysis. When the ALUP is updated, the City will submit
the General Plan to the ALUC for a determination of consistency. Should the ALUC
determine the adopted General Plan to be inconsistent, the City will evaluate the
underlying technical information that supports any changes to the ALUP and make an
informed determination based on verifiable data whether 1) any changes to the general
plan should be adopted and /or 2) consider other actions authorized under the State
Aeronautics Act.
41. An analysis of the Handbook Safety Zone Adjustment Factors was completed for SBP
in section 4.3 of the Compatibility Report and the findings indicate that no safety zone
adjustments from those recommended by the Handbook are required (See Airport
Land Use Compatibility Report, Pages 33 -34). However, the LUCE Update and the
AOZ reflect and do not propose to alter the existing ALUP safety zone configurations,
recognizing that the ALUC is in the process of updating its ALUP and completing and
associated environmental analysis.
42. LUCE Policies and the adoption of the Airport Overlay Zone provide both a policy
frame work and standards for development to ensure that development is consistent
with allowable densities, height limitation, allowable uses, and other safety standards
to ensure that development is evaluated for consistency with the State Aeronautics
Act. The Airport Overlay Zone took into account existing and proposed facilities
identified in the Airport Master Plan (AMP) in establishing standards for development
to ensure that future development would only be allowed in areas that minimize risk to
public health and safety and consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and
recommended guidance in the Handbook . However, the LUCE Update and the AOZ
reflect and do not propose to alter the existing ALUP safety zone configurations,
recognizing that the ALUC is in the process of updating its ALUP and completing and
associated environmental analysis. LUCE Policies and the adoption of the Airport
Overlay Zone provide both a policy frame work and standards for development to
ensure that development is consistent with densities /intensities, height, allowed uses,
obstructions, noise and other safety standards to ensure that development is evaluated
for consistency with the State Aeronautics Act. The Airport Overlay Zone reflects the
safety zones identified in the ALUP and takes into account existing and proposed
facilities identified in the Airport Master Plan (AMP) in establishing standards for
development in limited portions of the S -lb, S -lc and S -2 safety zones to ensure that
future development will only be allowed in areas that minimize risk to public health
and safety and are consistent with guidance from the Handbook.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 17
Airspace Protection
Exhibit A
43. Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.060 contains Airspace Protection standards to
reduce the risk of harm to people and property resulting from an aircraft accident by
preventing the creation of land use features and prohibition of any activities that can
pose hazards to the airspace used by aircraft in flight, consistent with
recommendations beginning on Page 4 -34 of the Handbook and directly referencing
the ALUP. Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR Part 77) and Public
Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21659, the Airport Overlay Zone 17.57.060 ensures that
no structures shall penetrate the airspace protection surfaces of the airport without a
permit from the California Department of Transportation, or a determination by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the object does not constitute a hazard to
air navigation or would not create an unsafe condition for air navigation. The LUCE
and associated Airport Overlay Zone implement this guidance in compliance with
guidance from Handbook Chapter 3 and directly referencing the ALUP. Building
permits for such structures require the filing of a 7460 form with the FAA and shall
not be issued until a Determination of No Hazard has been issued by the FAA and any
conditions in that Determination are met. Approvals for such projects may include the
requirement for an avigation easement, marking or lighting of the structure, or
modifications to the structure.
44. Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.060 further prohibits other activities that could
pose a hazard to flight operations, including but not limited to: distracting lights, glare,
sources of dust, steam, heat or smoke, sources of electrical interference and features
that attract birds through direct reference to Section 4.5 of the ALUP. These standards
are consistent with the Airspace Protection and Hazards to Flight guidelines beginning
on Page 4 -34 of the Handbook and with the ALUP therefore provide for airspace
protection that minimizes public health and safety consistent with the State
Aeronautics Act.
Overflight
45. Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.080 includes a direct reference to the ALUP for
overflight standards and requires overflight notification for land uses near the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport and requires that all owners of property offered for -
sale or for -lease within the Airport Overlay Zone to provide a disclosure prior to
selling or leasing property in San Luis Obispo, disclosing that the property is routinely
subject to overflights by aircraft and, as a result, residents may experience
inconvenience, annoyance, or discomfort arising from the noise of such operations.
This is consistent with guidelines beginning on Page 4 -13 of the Handbook. Further,
the disclosure reiterates the importance of public -use airports to protection of the
public interest of the people of the state of California indicates that the current volume
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 18
Exhibit A
of aircraft activity may increase in the future in response to San Luis Obispo County
and City population and economic growth. Said Section 17.57.080 requires that all
subsequent deeds conveying land within the Airport Overlay Zone shall contain a
statement such a disclosure and that such disclosure shall be recorded and appear with
the property deed.
46. Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.090 requires that substantial open space be
maintained in the Airport Overlay Zone area for emergency landings, pursuant to
guidelines beginning on Page 4 -30 of the Handbook. Within the Airport Area Specific
Plan area, the following open space is required for this purpose: 250 acres on the
Chevron property with two areas specifically improved to meet ALUC standards; and
a 300' wide strip adjacent to Buckley Road (24 acres) on the Avila Ranch site.
Substantial open area is also required for this purpose within the Margarita Area
Specific Plan area, at Laguna Lake Park; on the Brughelli property south of Buckley
Road; and within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area, west of Highway 101 and
south of Dalidio Drive. Section 17.57.090 further provides that where open space or
conservation easements have been obtained and the topography supports it, the City
shall not allow uses to be established that conflict with their availability to be used as a
landing option in the event of an emergency. Where easements have yet to be
obtained, the City shall incorporate the requirement for open land as part of the
discretionary approval process.
Reference availability:
Airport Land Use Compatibility Report, and Final Compatibility Report Dated August 11, 2014.
Noise Complaints referenced in Finding 33 available as Council Reading Materials on File with
City Clerk's office.
www.slo2035.com
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 19
t� r
� a ,
0
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
mEmoRanaum
October 14, 2014
City Council
Derek Johnson, Director, Community Development Department
Exhibit B
PREPARED BY: Nick Johnson, Johnson Aviation
Dorota Skrzypek, Johnson Aviation
Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Community Development Department
SUBJECT: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RESPONSE TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
COMMENTS LETTER REGARDING THE CITY'S INTENT TO OVERRULE
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION THAT THE DRAFT LAND USE AND CIRCULATION
ELEMENT (LUCE) UPDATE AND ASSOCIATED IMPLEMENTATION
INCLUDING CREATION OF AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONING
REGULATIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT LAND USE
PLAN
Discussion
The City received a letter from the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) on September 18, 2014 in response to the City's letter to the ALUC on August 20, 2014
transmitting the City's proposed intent to overrule the ALUC determination of inconsistency
pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b). It is important to point out that the City
appreciates the message that was conveyed in the cover letter to the ALUC comments. This
cover letter was a short but sincere outcome of a very productive meeting held between the
ALUC and the City to begin moving toward a balanced airport land use plan that protects the
airport investment while meeting the City's other land use and circulation considerations.
The ALUC will also find that the City has made a significant adjustment in its proposed
approach to its Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update and associated Airport
Overlay Zoning (AOZ) Regulations to limit the scope of its overrule of the ALUC's
determination of inconsistency with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). This revised approach
is covered fully within the final Findings document prepared and considered for adoption by a
2/3's vote on October 21, 2014.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 20 Exhibit B
Despite the positive signals coming from the ALUC about future efforts to find common ground,
the ALUC did transmit a 65 -page letter and many additional attachments as its response to the
City's Intent to Overrule the ALUC's determination that the LUCE Update and associated AOZ
Regulations are inconsistent with the ALUP. The letter by the ALUC raises a number of
concerns and makes many factual and legal misstatements that it is necessary to address each
point for the administrative record. The purpose of this report is to provide factual information
and the proper legal standard of review for local jurisdictions considering overrule of an ALUC
determination.
To aid in understanding of the legal standard of review, Lori Ballance with Gatzke Dillon and
Ballance, LLP, a land use and environmental attorney specializing in California Airport Land
Use issues has been retained by the City. Ms. Ballance provided legal guidance to Caltrans in
the development of the 2011 update of the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(Handbook). Because of her expertise in this area of law, we have asked that she summarize for
ease of public reference the statutory framework surrounding the ALUC consistency and
overrule process. In response, Lori has provided a memo titled, "Public Memorandum
Regarding LUCE Overrule Process." This memo is important to the review of the process and
framework issues raised by the ALUC and is intended to aid the ALUC in understanding the
City's revised approach and the Council and the public in evaluating the issues raised and the
City's responses to those issues. In responding to the ALUC's comments related to the legal
requirements we have referenced Ms. Ballance's memo (Attachment A to City Response to
Caltrans Comments) additional support for the City's position on the matter.
SPECIFIC ISSUES
I.BACKGROUND
1. The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) is a vital resource, not only for the
City but for the entire County of San Luis Obispo ( "County "). According to a 2013 study
performed by the California Airports Council (CAC), SBP provides over one hundred (100) on-
airport jobs and three (3) times as many additional off -site support jobs. Overall, according to
CAC data, SBP contributes more than seventy four million dollars ($74,000,000.00) annually to
the local economy.
Response 1: The City fully supports the critical role that the Airport plays in the City's
economy and transportation infrastructure. See Chapter 11 of the LUCE Update and discussion
in the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan where it states, "The airport is an important
factor in the desired future of the area and vitality of the business parks envisioned."'
2. In recognition of the importance of public use airports throughout the state, the legislature
enacted the State Aeronautics Act, codified in PUC Section 21001 et seq. (Division 9, Part 1)
(SAA). Chapter 4, Article 3.5 of the SAA calls for the establishment of airport land use
1 Economic Development Strategic Plan, pages 17
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 21 Exhibit B
commissions (ALUCs) in all counties containing an airport served by a scheduled airline or an
airport operated for the benefit of the general public with limited exception (see PUC Section
21670(b)). The purposes of Article 3.5 are set forth in PUC Section 21670(a):
(1) It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public
use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the
overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to
Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems (emphasis
added).
(2) It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by
ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that
minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around
public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses
(emphasis added).
Response 2: The City fully acknowledges the purview and code sections regarding formation of
the ALUC and its role, as well as the intent of the Public Utilities Code to ensure land uses
around airports address safety and noise concerns as well as the desire to ensure the orderly
expansion of the airport.
3. One of the powers and duties of an ALUC is the formulation of one (1) or more ALUPs
that "provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport
[ ... ] [and that] safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport
and the public in general" (see PUC Section 21674 and 21675(a)). The ALUP(s) "shall include
and be based on a long -range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division
of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the
airport during at least the next 20 years" (see PUC Section 21675(a)). In preparing its ALUP(s),
an ALUC "shall by guided by" information contained in the Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook (Handbook) prepared by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) (emphasis added) (see PUC Section 21674.7).
Response 3: The City is aware of the ALUC's power and duty to develop an ALUP as well as
the requirement that the ALUP be based upon the latest Airport Master Plan/Layout Plan which
projects anticipated growth of the airport.
4. The ALUC initially adopted the ALUP in 1977. The ALUC subsequently updated the
ALUP in 2002, 2004 and most recently in 2005. The 2005 update to the ALUP contained
revisions based on the 1998 update to the Airport Master Plan (the then current Airport Master
Plan) and included provisions negotiated between the City and the ALUC for development
within the Margarita Specific Plan Area.
Response 4: The City acknowledges the ALUP currently in place includes the Margarita Area
Specific Plan but has not been updated to reflect the latest Airport Master Plan.
5. Despite severe budgetary constraints, approximately two (2) years ago, the ALUC
commenced efforts to update the ALUP based on, among other things, the 2005 update to the
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 22 Exhibit B
Airport Master Plan and to accommodate a request by the City to convert the analog zones
contained within the current ALUP into GIS format.
Response 5: The City provided the resources and staff to work with the ALUC subcommittee in
attempting to put the graphic depiction of safety zones into a GIS format at no cost to the ALUC.
This was just the first step in the process to understand where ALUP safety zones deviated from
Handbook zones, and to initiate discussions with the ALUC regarding reasons for adjustments,
underlying land use restrictions, noise contours that appeared to not be based on the Airport
Master Plan (AMP) among other things. The purpose of these discussions was to assist the
ALUC in updating its plan based on facts and professional planning advice with the objective of
consistency with the State Aeronautics Act.
6. During the same time period, the City's Community Development Department (CDD)
prepared the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates. In connection with this effort, the City
hired Johnson Aviation at an approximate cost of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00).
As evidenced by a multitude of written correspondence, the CDD greatly expanded its request in
connection with the ALUP update and pressed the ALUC to make significant changes to the
ALUP. More specifically, the City requested that the ALUC revise the ALUP to make the
ALUP consistent with the recommendations ultimately set forth in the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report prepared by Johnson Aviation (Johnson Report) and contained within the
Airport Area Chapter (Chapter 7) of the LUCE Update and the Airport Overlay Zone Chapter
(Chapter 17.57) of the Zoning Ordinance Update. At the special meeting of the ALUC on
September 5, 2014, the City reiterated its desire to have the ALUC "bring the policies and
objectives of the ALUP closer to compliance with the City of SLO General Plan" (emphasis
added).
Response 6: The general results of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was the
recommendation to resolve four primary areas with the ALUC:
a. ALUP Maneuvering Zone S -1 b size and land use criteria, which are more restrictive than
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria.
b. ALUP Sideline Zone S -1 c size and land use criteria, which are more restrictive than
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria.
c. ALUP Zone S -2 size and land use criteria, which are more restrictive than California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria.
d. ALUP aircraft noise contours and associated land use criteria, which are more restrictive
than California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria, and not
based on the forecasts provided in the Airport Master Plan Update (2005) and the
subsequent EA/EIR prepared for the AMP update.
These were not "significant" changes, nor were these changes meant to align the ALUP with the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Report, Airport Area Chapter (Chapter 7) of the LUCE Update,
or the Airport Overlay Zone Chapter (Chapter 17.57) of the Zoning Ordinance Update. Rather,
they were changes that the City hoped would better align the ALUP Update with the 2005
Airport Master Plan Update, the 2006 EA/EIR, and guidance from the 2011 California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook). These changes would "bring the policies and
objectives of the ALUP closer to compliance with the City of SLO General Plan ". However, they
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 23 Exhibit B
would also bring the ALUP closer to compliance with the 2005 Airport Master Plan Update, the
2006 EA/EIR, and the 2011 Handbook.
7. The ALUC and ALUC staff have had to expend a great deal of time and resources
responding to the City's expanded request and the analysis contained within the Johnson Report.
In addition, although the City initially expressed a willingness to provide funding for the
generation of updated noise contours for the ALUP amendment, the City later withdrew its offer
based on unwillingness to fund any scenarios not endorsed by the City. Consequently, the
ALUC has not been able to complete the ALUP update.
Response 7: The City has reached out to the ALUC for over two years to bring ideas that better
align the ALUP with the 2005 Airport Master Plan Update, the 2006 EA /EIR, and the 2011
Handbook to the table for consideration. The ALUC has refused to compromise on any ideas to
date. After numerous informal requests, the City made a Public Records Act request of both the
ALUC and Caltrans to attempt to review a copy of the proposed update to the ALUC's Airport
Land Use Plan (ALUP). Despite these efforts by the City to participate in the ALUP update
process in an informed way, both the ALUC and Caltrans refused to provide a copy of the ALUP
update. Only after the City announced its intent to overrule the ALUC determination on the
LUCE did the ALUC finally make a public release of a copy of their draft ALUP.
Unfortunately, this course of action did not demonstrate the open and inclusive planning process
in which the City had hoped to participate.
The City has long attempted to approach the discussion in a collaborative manner. In February
2010, the City explored with the Department of Transportation whether CAAP funds were
available to update the ALUP only to find that all three grant programs had been suspended and
the DOT was unsure about future grant funds. At the same time, the City requested to be
involved with the ALUC through the update process to ensure the City's perspectives were
represented. This process started with discussions regarding the Chevron project and Airport
Area Specific Plan update (AASP) and the hiring of Johnson Aviation to assist with the ALUP
update process. The City met with a subcommittee of the ALUC in September 2010, and April
and August 2011 to work through the Chevron/AASP plan. With resolution of the particular
project (through Chevron's agreement to flatten some of the tank berms in addition to the already
required 250 acres of open space), the ALUC's initial action to update the plan was abandoned.
ALUC meetings between March and September 2012 were cancelled. In April 2012, City staff
initiated a meeting with the ALUC subcommittee and an applicant for the Avila Ranch project to
again request clarification of safety zone locations for purposes of determining constraints for the
LUCE update and to understand to what standards the Avila Ranch property would be held in a
rezoning application. The ALUC subcommittee indicated that residential uses on the Avila
Ranch property would not be supported by the ALUC under any circumstances (despite being
located in Safety Zone 2) and terminated the meeting.
City staff attended ALUC meetings and continued to request update of the ALUP as well as meet
with County staff support to the ALUC to understand how the City and County could collaborate
on the effort. Meetings were attended by City staff in May, June, August, and October 2012.
During the months of November and December 2012, the City provided GIS staff and Nick
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 24 Exhibit B
Johnson of Johnson Aviation to support to the ALUC subcommittees to work through a draft
document prepared by a Commissioner that provided the calculus defining the safety zones. City
staff expressed concerns about locations of the zones as they shifted in significant ways from the
graphic map depicted in the ALUP. The City provided testimony in meetings with the ALUC as
it considered the new maps (now in GIS format) as well as the assumptions behind the noise
contours in February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, and October 2013. In
November 2013, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Staff met with County and City staff, and
members of the ALUC subcommittee. They cautioned the City in not following ALUP
limitations and clarified that the ALUP noise contours needed to be based upon the AMP.
Throughout all of the meetings with the subcommittee and the full ALUC, ALUC members
discounted the technical information provided by Johnson Aviation and declined to consider or
question the basis for the safety zones proposed in the Dimensional Detail document prepared by
one of the Commissioners.
Beginning in 2014, the ALUC subcommittee met in private and provided no access to the draft
under development for public review despite public records act requests by the City. Currently,
the ALUC wishes to update the noise contours for the ALUP in order to complete the update to
the ALUP. The City has provided the noise contours from the AMP EIR using the same
assumptions regarding operations, time of day, fleet mix etc. in the latest INM model for the
ALUC's use. The AMP provides a conservative approach to potential noise impacts for future
planning and would enable the ALUC to complete the draft ALUP to enable environmental
review as well as full public review. In summary, the City has tried to assist the ALUC in
ensuring the ALUP is based upon a strong technical foundation, with data to support the policy
framework, but has been rebuffed at every point along the way.
A. REFERRAL OF THE LUCE AND ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATES
8. The City referred the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates to the ALUC on June 13,
2014, as required by PUC Section 21676(b).
Response 8: The City referred the documents in accordance with PUC Section 21676(b).
9. As the ALUC is in the process of amending the ALUP as described in Paragraphs 5 and 7
supra, both the City's referral and any subsequent override are premature.
Response 9: The City is not required to freeze frame its GP /zoning ordinances and development
projects while the ALUC updates its ALUP. As indicated above, the ALUC initiated its ALUP
Update over two years ago and it is not clear when the ALUP (and associated CEQA
compliance) will be complete. The City's referral and overrule is not premature. The City has
reached out to the ALUC for over two years to bring ideas that better align the ALUP with the
2005 Airport Master Plan Update, the 2006 EA/EIR, and the 2011 Handbook to the table for
consideration. The ALUC has refused to compromise on any ideas or be informed by technical
information. After numerous friendly requests, the City was forced to make a Public Records Act
request of both the ALUC and Caltrans (2 -26 -14 and 3 -24 -14 respectively) to attempt to simply
review a copy of the proposed update to the ALUC's Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Despite
these extraordinary lengths by the City to participate in the ALUP update process, both the
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 25 Exhibit B
ALUC and Caltrans refused to provide a copy of the ALUP update. Only after the City
announced its intent to overrule the ALUC determination on the LUCE did the ALUC finally
make a public release of a copy of their draft ALUP. This approach does not demonstrate an
open and inclusive planning process.
i. Character of the Airport Policies set forth in the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates
10. Prior to its referral of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates to the ALUC, the CDD
repeatedly and emphatically assured both the ALUC and Caltrans that the City had no intention
of developing a defacto airport land use compatibility plan for SBP within the LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance Updates and that any inconsistency with the ALUP would be project specific.
Response 10: The City has not developed a de facto airport land use compatibility plan for SBP.
Rather, it is proceeding with an overrule in those areas within the City that are inconsistent with
the ALUP policies, as provided by law. The CDD did not indicate that project - specific overrides
would be forthcoming because the LUCE process is a General Plan update and policies and
programs apply city -wide. The particular areas of physical change were shared with the ALUC
sub - committee and publicly posted (as have been all staff reports, minutes, workshop summaries,
background reports, PowerPoints, and Task Force, Planning Commission and Council
proceedings related to the LUCE process). The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Report was to establish the basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis
Obispo General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also
provides updated technical information on the progress of airport development and operations
since the completion of the most recent San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master
Plan Update, which the current ALUP does not provide. Supporting this updated information is
accurate graphical information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport's safety zones, noise impact
areas and overflight areas, which the current ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours
provided in the ALUP are cited as being based on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001
(which cannot be located), not on the 2006 EA/EIR completed for the Airport Master Plan
Update. The City and the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) have
been trying to reconcile differences since 2012 between the details of the Airport Land Use Plan
(ALUP), the Draft Dimensional Detail of Airport Safety Zones document, and compatible land
use zoning within the City limits. The City assisted the ALUC in accurately mapping the
assumptions behind the adopted ALUP zones into a GIS format to provide a basis for discussion
and suggestions for an update to the ALUP that would balance the interests of the ALUC, the
City, and the County. However, to date the ALUC has refused any compromise.
11. In contravention of the assurances described in Paragraph 10 supra, the Airport Area
Chapter (Chapter 7) of the LUCE Update and the Airport Overlay Zone Chapter (Chapter 17.57)
of the Zoning Ordinance Update constitute precisely such a defacto plan as evidenced by the
following provisions contained therein: [Legislative Draft is shown]
Policies in this section apply to the Airport Area, as shown in figure 8 and represent the
Airport Influence Area subject to airport safety, noise, height, and overflight standards
(italics added).
Airport Land Use Plan
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 26
Exhibit B
Land use density and intensity shall carefully balance noise impacts and the progression
in the degree of reduced safety risk further away from the runways consistent with
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines._ The City shall use the
Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity as a reasonably foreseeable projection
of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for long- term _land use planning gurposes.
Develepment should be peffflitted enly if it is eensistepA with the San L-ttis Obi
Response 11: This is consistent with guidance from the Handbook and what the ALUC is using
for its ALUP Update (see statements by ALUC above). Figure 8 has been modified to
correspond to the boundaries of the ALUP safety zones and LUCE Policy 7.3.3 above has been
edited to refer to guidance from the SLO County Regional Airport Land Use Plan, State
Aeronautics Act, and the Handbook.
Airport Safety Zones
Airport Safety Zones shall be consistent with California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook guidelines and substantiated by the San Luis Obispo County Airport Master
Plan activity forecasts as used for noise planning pup2oses.
Response 12: This is consistent with the Handbook and what the ALUC is using for its ALUP
Update (see statements by ALUC above). Based on guidance from Caltrans and the ALUC, the
City is not overruling the geographical boundaries of the ALUP safety zones but rather is
overruling the land use policies within limited areas of safety zones S1-b, S -1 c and S -2. This is
reflected in edited policy language in Chapter 7 of the Land Use Element.
Airport Noise Compatibility
The City shall use the aircraft noise analysis prepared for the Airport Master Plan
Environmental Impact. Report as an accurate mapping; of the long term noise impact of
the airport's aviation activity that is tied to the ultimate facilities development depicted in
the FAA- approved Airport Layout Plan. The City shall use the 60 dB CNEL aircraft
noise contour (FAA and State aircraft noise planning standards) as the threshold for new
urban residential areas. Interiors of new residential structures shall be constructed to
meet a maximum 45 db CNEL.
Response 13: This is consistent with the guidance in the Handbook and direction by Caltrans
staff (to base noise contours on the adopted AMP).
County Airport Land Use Plan
The City shall continue to work with the County Airport Land Use Commission to
strive to achieve consistency between the County AiWort Lund Use 1'leon and the City's
General Plan. Y'cvnsimency cannot be achieved. the City shall preserve and maintain
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 27
Exhibit B
as a plausible alternative its constitutional land use authority to overrule the Airport
Land Use Commission with regard to adopting General Plan policies that are consistent
with the purposes ol' the Califomia Aiq)ort Ladd. Use Planning Handbook, State
Aeronautics Act and State Law. Applicable sections of the Zoning Regulations and the
Specific Plan shall be amended accordingly (italics added) (This section contains the
only reference to the ALUC's ALUP within Chapter 7 of the LUCE Update).
Response 14: This is consistent with the guidance in the Handbook and provisions of Public
Utilities Code. The City will continue to work with the ALUC to bring technical information
and data to the ALUP update discussion in the hopes that the LUCE and the updated ALUP can
find more common ground.
NEW PROGRAMS
Airport Overlay Zone
The City shall create an Airport Overlay Zone category to codify airport
compatibility criteria identi>ied in the general plan or those areas located within the
Airport Influence Area consistent with the requirements of the California State
Aeronautics Act (Cal. Pub. Utilities (;'odc, .Vec tion 210701. et se q.) which_ establishes
statewide requirements for airport land use compatibility planning, the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which is published by the California
Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics to support and amplify the
State Aeronautics Act requirements, and other related federal and state requirements
relating to o airport land use compatibility planning_
Implementation of the compatibility policies will be accompanied thi•Ough the AiMQq
Land Use Zoning Code (italics added).
Response 15: The Handbook specifically references Airport Overlay Zones as an appropriate
tool to supplement traditional zoning and development standards to reflect safety and noise
considerations specific to aviation activity. This program has been updated to develop an AOZ
which reflects the boundaries of the ALUP.
Response 16: The City has not developed a de facto airport land use compatibility plan for
SBP. Rather, it is proceeding with an overrule in those areas that are inconsistent with the ALUP
policies as required by law. The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to
establish the basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General
Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated
technical information on the progress of airport development and operations since the completion
of the most recent San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which
the current ALUP does not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical
information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport's safety zones, noise impact areas and
overflight areas, which the current ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours cited in the
ALUP indicate they are based on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001, not on the 2006
EVEIR completed for the Airport Master Plan Update. The City and the San Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) have been trying to reconcile differences since
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 28 Exhibit B
2012 between the details of the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), the Draft Dimensional Detail of
Airport Safety Zones document, and compatible land use zoning within the City limits. The City
assisted the ALUC in accurately mapping the assumptions behind the adopted ALUP zones into
a GIS format to provide a basis for discussion and suggestions for an update to the ALUP that
would balance the interests of the ALUC, the City, and the County. However, the ALUC has
refused any compromise.
12. In its comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance Updates dated July 18, 2014 (attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
this reference), Caltrans opined that the airport policies contained in the LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance Updates constitute a defacto airport land use compatibility plan and that such a plan is
violates the SAA:
Even if the time and expense of an overrule is pursued by the City, the
proposed airport programs and policies in the LUCE are so comprehensive that
they have the net effect of amending the ALUCP and its policies, circumventing
the ALUC's project review process, and nearly establishing a separate airport
land use commission that would replace the County's. State law does not
support such a wholesale transfer of airport land use compatibility planning to
any other entity. State law specifically authorizes the establishment ofALUCs
in a manner consistent with the law, and authorizes only them to formulate and
adoptALUCPs (italics added).
Response 17: The most obvious outcome of a local agency's overruling is that the proposed
action (approval of the LUCE) takes effect just as if the ALUC had approved it or found it
consistent with the compatibility plan. There is no prohibition against an agency overruling an
ALUP at the General Plan (GP) level. The City is not usurping the ALUC's power. In fact, the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Report proved that there were many areas of agreement between
the ALUC and the City. The general, the results of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report
was the recommendation to resolve four primary areas with the ALUC:
a. ALUP Maneuvering Zone S -lb size and land use criteria, which are more
restrictive than California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and
criteria.
b. ALUP Sideline Zone S -lc size and land use criteria, which are more restrictive
than California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria.
c. ALUP Zone S -2 size and land use criteria, which are more restrictive than
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria.
d. ALUP aircraft noise contours and associated land use criteria, which are more
restrictive than California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and
criteria, and not based on the forecasts provided in the Airport Master Plan
Update (2005) and the subsequent EA/EIR prepared for the AMP update.
The City has not developed a de facto airport land use compatibility plan for SBP. The purpose
of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the airport-area
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 29 Exhibit B
policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element
(LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated technical information on the progress of
airport development and operations since the completion of the most recent San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the current ALUP does not provide.
Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical information system (GIS) mapping of
the Airport's safety zones, noise impact areas and overflight areas, which the current ALUP also
does not provide. The noise contours provided in the ALUP are based on a Brown Buntin Study
completed in 2001, not on the 2006 EA /EIR completed for the Airport Master Plan Update. The
City and the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) have been trying
to reconcile differences since 2012 between the details of the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), the
Draft Dimensional Detail of Airport Safety Zones document, and compatible land use zoning
within the City limits. The City assisted the ALUC in accurately mapping the assumptions
behind the adopted ALUP zones into a GIS format to provide a basis for discussion and
suggestions for an update to the ALUP that would balance the interests of the ALUC, the City,
and the County. However, the ALUC has refused any compromise.
The City has amended the figure in Chapter 7 of the Land Use Element to reflect the boundaries
of the ALUP and has amended provisions in the AOZ to address the ALUP. The overrule is
limited in scope to land use provisions in limited areas of Safety Zones S -lb, S -lc, and S -2
outside of specific plan areas previously found by the ALUC to be consistent with the ALUP. In
addition, provisions in the Land Use Element and AOZ directly reference the required referral
process to the ALUC for General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning changes. No action by the city
is usurping the role of the ALUC, but rather the city is availing itself of the provisions in the
Public Utilities Code to overrule the determination of inconsistency.
13. No local land use agency within the state has ever adopted such a defacto airport land use
compatibility plan within its general plan or zoning ordinance.
Response 18: The Aeronautics Act clearly authorizes an overrule at the GP level. The City has
not developed a de facto airport land use compatibility plan for SBP. The purpose of the Airport
Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the airport-area policies chapter in
the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update.
The Report also provides updated technical information on the progress of airport development
and operations since the completion of the most recent San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
(SBP) Master Plan Update, which the current ALUP does not provide. Supporting this updated
information is accurate graphical information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport's safety
zones, noise impact areas and overflight areas, which the current ALUP also does not provide.
The noise contours provided in the ALUP are based on a Brown Buntin Study completed in
2001, not on the 2006 EA/EIR completed for the Airport Master Plan Update. The City and the
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) have been trying to reconcile
differences since 2012 between the details of the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), the Draft
Dimensional Detail of Airport Safety Zones document, and compatible land use zoning within
the City limits. The City assisted the ALUC in accurately mapping the assumptions behind the
adopted ALUP zones into a GIS format to provide a basis for discussion and suggestions for an
update to the ALUP that would balance the interests of the ALUC, the City, and the County.
However, the ALUC has refused any compromise.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 30 Exhibit B
14. Given that the ALUC is in the process of amending the ALUP and that the LUCE and
Zoning Ordinance Updates constitute a defacto airport land use compatibility plan, the area
surrounding SBP could be considered a "no -ALUP" area. Consequently, pursuant to PUC
Section 21675.1 (a) and (b), the City may be required to submit all actions, regulations and
permits within the vicinity of the SBP to the ALUC for review and approval.
Response 19: ALUCs can require the review of "all actions, regulations, and permits" involving
the vicinity of a public airport under only two circumstances: (1) prior to ALUC adoption of a
compatibility plan for the airport (the ALUC has an ALUP so this does not apply); and (2) when
a local agency has neither revised its GP to be consistent with the ALUC's plan nor overruled the
ALUC with regard to the ALUP. The City proposes to overrule the ALUC determination and
therefore the ALUC cannot require review of "all actions, regulations, and permits ".
15. Based on the provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates set forth in
Paragraph 11 supra and a number of specific findings attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein by reference, the ALUC determined that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance
Updates are inconsistent with the ALUP on July 16, 2014. Although the ALUC based its
determination of inconsistency on the contents of the ALUP adopted in 2005, the findings also
included statements that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are inconsistent with the
SAA. Given the pending ALUC update and reference in the LUCE Update to continued efforts
to "reach consistency," it should be noted that the Handbook provides that the following two
specific tests should be considered by an ALUC when it determines whether local planning
policies are fully consistent with the ALUP:
a) Whether any direct conflicts between the two plans have been eliminated;
b) Whether the local plan delineates a mechanism or process for ensuring that
individual land use development proposals comply with the ALUC's adopted
compatibility criteria (emphasis added).
As discussed in Paragraph 11 supra, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates make no
reference to compliance with the ALUC's adopted compatibility criteria. Consequently,
notwithstanding the actual content of the final ALUP update, unless the LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance Updates are amended to reference the ALUP, it is difficult to imagine a set of
circumstances under which the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would satisfy (b).
Response 20: The Airport Land Use Compatibility Report proved that there were many areas of
agreement between the ALUC and the City. The general, the results of the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report was the recommendation to resolve four primary areas with the ALUC:
a. ALUP Maneuvering Zone S -lb size and land use criteria, which are more
restrictive than California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and
criteria.
b. ALUP Sideline Zone S -lc size and land use criteria, which are more restrictive
than California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria.
c. ALUP Zone S -2 size and land use criteria, which are more restrictive than
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 31
Exhibit B
d. ALUP aircraft noise contours and associated land use criteria, which are more
restrictive than California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and
criteria, and not based on the forecasts provided in the Airport Master Plan
Update (2005) and the subsequent EA /EIR prepared for the AMP update.
Updates to the Airport Overlay Zone provisions provide several direct references to the Airport
Land Use Plan.
B. Notice of Intent to Overrule
16. Pursuant to PUC Section 21676(b), in order for the City to adopt the LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance Updates, the City Council must overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency
by a two - thirds vote. The vote must be supported by "specific findings that the proposed action
[adoption of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates] is consistent with the purposes of
[Article 3.5] stated in [PUC] Section 21670" and set forth in Paragraph 2 supra.
Response 21: The City's LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with [PUC]
Section 21670 and Paragraph 2 of this ALUC letter, and the Resolution to overrule includes
specific findings to support the action.
17. PUC Section 21670(a)(2) provides that 'land use measures [should] minimize the
public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to
the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses" (emphasis added). In
addition, PUC Section 21670(a) (1) provides that "the creation of new noise and safety
problems" should be prevented (emphasis added). Consequently, in order to satisfy the
requirements of PUC Section 21676(b), the City must adopt findings that the LUCE and
Zoning Ordinance Updates do not permit any noise and safety hazards notpermitted under the
ALUP.
Response 22: The findings document inconsistencies between noise element policies and noise
compatibility criteria in the ALUP and indicate why the differences exist; show how noise
element policies will assure conformance with the state noise airport standards; and identify
measures to be incorporated into local development to mitigate existing and foreseeable airport
noise problems. Similarly, the findings document inconsistencies between the LUCE and safety
compatibility criteria in the ALUC compatibility plan, describe measures taken to assure that
risks associated with the land use proposal are held to a minimum and that the proposed land use
measures fall within a level of acceptable risk considered to be a community norm for urban and
suburban areas. There is no requirement in the State Aeronautics Act that indicates a City must
adopt standards that are more restrictive than the Airport Land Use Plan in order to show
consistency with the State Aeronautics Act when acting to overrule the Airport Land Use
Commission determination. Key words are to "minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise
and safety hazards" NOT to not permit anything not permitted under the ALUP.
18. In addition, all such findings should be supported by substantial evidence in the record
and provide a clear link between such evidence and the decision reached (see California Aviation
Council v. City of Ceres (1992) 9 Cal.AppAth 1384).
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 32 Exhibit B
Response 23: The Airport Land Use Compatibility Report and Findings prepared by the City in
support of its LUCE Update provide substantial evidence, for the record, and provide a clear link
between such evidence and the decision reached.
19. PUC Section 21676(b) further requires the City to provide the ALUC and Caltrans with a
copy of its proposed decision to overrule and findings at least forty five (45) days prior to its
final decision to overrule the ALUC. The ALUC and Caltrans may provide comments to the City
within thirty (30) days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If the comments are not
available within the time prescribed, the City can proceed without them. Although any
comments submitted by the ALUC and Caltrans are advisory, they must be included in the
record of the City's final decision to overrule.
Response 24: The Council adopted preliminary findings on August 19, 2014 and those findings
were transmitted (and received) by the ALUC on August 20, 2014 and by Caltrans on August 22,
2014. Responses were received from Caltrans on September 22, 2014 and by the ALUC on
September 19, 2014. The Council did not consider action until October 21, 2014 — 60 days after
transmittal of the findings. Final action will not occur until December 2, 2014 at the earliest.
Therefore, the City's action is consistent with PUC Section 21676(b).
20. On August 20, 2014, the City submitted a Notice of Intent to Overrule, attached hereto as
Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference, including Resolution No. 10552 (2014 Series)
A Resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo Directing Staff to File with the San Luis
Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and Caltrans (Division of Aeronautics)
Draft Findings that the Proposed Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update is Consistent
with the Purposes Setforth in Public Utilities Code Section 21670 and that the City therefore
Intends to Overrule the ALUC's Determination that the LUCE is Inconsistent with the Airport Land
Use Plan (City Resolution). The City Resolution contains forty two (42) Findings as Exhibit B to
substantiate its position that the proposed LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent
with the purposes set forth in PUC Section 21670.
Response 25: Comment noted.
i. Liability Shift
21. PUC Section 21678 states that "[w]ith respect to a publicly owned airport that a public
agency does not operate, if the public agency pursuant to [PUC] Sections 21676, 21676.5 or
21677 overrules a commission's action or recommendation, the operator of the airport shall be
immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly
or indirectly from the public agency's decision to overrule the commission's action or
recommendation." In plain language, the PUC provides that if the City overrules the ALUC, the
County will be absolved of any liability for damage to property or injury to persons due to
aircraft accidents within the Airport Planning Area resulting from the overrule. Although the
PUC does not explicitly state that such liability will be assumed by the City, liability will be
presumed by any future litigants.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 33 Exhibit B
Response 26: Two sections of the law establish that, if a city overrules an ALUC with respect to
a publicly owned airport not operated by the city, the agency operating the airport "shall be
immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly
or indirectly from the public agency's decision to override the commission's action or
recommendation" (Sections 21678 and 21675.1(f)). The law does not indicate that liability shifts
to the City under these circumstance. Any alleged liability against the City would have to be
proven through the litigation process, wherein various governmental immunities would likely
apply and a litigant would have to prove damages caused by the City, as opposed to the action or
failure to act of a third party.
II. RESPONSE TO THE CITY'S FINDINGS
A. General Comments
Finding Based on the Johnson Report
22. Finding 1 states that the Johnson Report "contains the supporting technical analysis and
documents precisely how the draft LUCE Update complies with the State Aeronautics Act, as set
forth in Division 9 (Aviation) of the Public Utilities Code (PUC)." The ALUC previously
reviewed a copy of the Draft Johnson Report (dated November 22, 2013) and prepared a
response entitled Review and Analysis of the Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Report
(ALUC Report) (The final Johnson Report dated August 11, 2014 does not contain any
significant revisions [as compared to the draft Johnson Report dated November 22, 2013]). The
ALUC Report is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by this reference. By way
of summary, the ALUC Report identifies the following deficiencies in the noise and safety
analysis contained in the Johnson Report (The ALUC Report also addresses inconsistencies
between the Johnson Report and prior aviation noise and safety analyses performed by Johnson
Aviation as well as deficiencies related to public process).
(a) Noise Analysis Deficiencies
(i) The Johnson Report misrepresents the 65 dB CNEL contour as a
"standard" for airport compatibility planning, whereas the Handbook indicates
that "[f]or quieter settings and many -if not most - airports in California, 65 db
CNEL is too high of a noise level to be appropriate as a standard for land use
compatibility planning."
Response 27: While there are no absolute determinants for the noise level at which an
individual person will be highly annoyed, federal and state regulations and policies set 65
decibels (dB) Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) or Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) as the basic limit of acceptable aircraft noise exposure for residential and other noise -
sensitive land uses.
The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook does recognize that for quieter settings, 65
dB CNEL may be too high, and it also states that "the best outcome is compatibility criteria that
will reflect what is appropriate for the communities involved."
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 34 Exhibit B
Table 413, Noise Compatibility Criteria Alternatives (New Residential Land Uses), from the
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook establishes the three CNEL values commonly
used as the limit for acceptable residential noise exposure and their applicability.
TABLE 4B: NOISE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA ALTERNATIVES
(NEW RESIDENTIAL LAND USES)
CNEL Criteria
Suggested Applicability
65 dB Set by the FAA and other federal agencies as the level above
Generally not appropnale for
which residential land uses may be incompatible if not
most new development
acoustically treated.
May be acceptable in noisy
Established by California state regulations as the maximum
urban locations and/or in hot
normally acceptable noise level for residential and certain other
climates where most buildings
land uses at county- designated noise - problem airports.
are air conditioned.
60 d8 The contour within which California Building Code (Section
Suitable tar new development
1207.11) requires an acoustical analysis of proposed residential
around most airports.
structures, other than detached single - family dwellings.
Particularly appropriate in mild
Suggested by the Califomia Governor's Office of Planning and
climates where windows are
Research Genial Plan Guidelines as the maximum - normally
often open.
acceptable' noise exposure for residential areas.
[Mote: Individual noise events will occasionally cause significant
interference with residential land use activities, particularly
outdoor activities, in quiet suburbanlrural communities]
55 dB Identified by the EPA as the level below which "undue Suitable for airports in quiet, rural
interference with activity and annoyance" will not occur. kcations.
1Note: Individual noise events will seldom significantly interfere
with residential land use activities (e.g., interference with
speech). In urban areas, aircraft contribuliar► to this noise level
may be less than that of other noise sources.]
Note_ When setting criteria for a specific airport" other characteristics of the airport and its environs also need to be
considered_
4ee Table 4A for normalization factors.
Based on the "urbanized area" designation by the Census Bureau and the existing land use and
planned land use in the Airport Influence Area, Caltrans guidelines suggest that for the City of
San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP), existing residential
and noise sensitive land uses are appropriate up to the 65 dB CNEL contour, but that new
residential development and noise sensitive uses should be limited to the 60 dB CNEL contour or
less. Applying the 60 dB CNEL noise contour as a limit for new residential uses is appropriate
as this is the established standard for all property within the City limits.
(ii) The Johnson Report incorrectly characterizes the airport environment as
"urbanized." In reality, all existing development within the Airport Planning Area
is either "suburban" or "rural" by the standards contained within the Handbook.
Response 28: San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) straddles city and county
jurisdictions and development (both existing and proposed) is vastly different inside the urban
reserve line versus outside the urban reserve line. Properties within the County's jurisdiction
(other than development supported through and anticipated by the Airport Area Specific Plan)
are rural or suburban in nature; characterized by larger agricultural parcels and existing
residential suburban development south of Buckley Road. Inside the urban reserve area are US
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 35 Exhibit B
101, state highways, rail noise, busy local and regional circulation systems, and commercial and
industrial parcels, and existing residential neighborhoods that create an urban environment and
elevate ambient noise.
The Census Bureau delineates urbanized areas and urban clusters after each decennial census,
"primarily on the basis of residential population density measures at the census tract and census
block levels of geography, but also based on additional criteria that account for patterns of non-
residential development as outlined in the urban area criteria published in the Federal Register on
August 24, 2011 (76 FR 53030)." (Qualifying Urban Areas for the 2010 Census). Based on its
characteristics, the City of San Luis Obispo is considered an urbanized area according to the list
provided by the Census Bureau in their Qualifying Urban Areas for the 2010 Census.
In defining their suggested base for delineating safety zones around an airport, the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook describes rural, suburban, urban, and dense urban areas as
follows:
Rural — Areas where the predominant land uses are natural or agricultural; buildings are
widely scattered.
Suburban — Areas characterized by low -rise (1 -2 story) development and surface parking
lots.
Urban — Areas characterized by mid -rise (up to 5 stories) development; generally surface
vehicle parking, but potentially some parking structures.
Dense Urban — City core areas characterized by extensive mid- and high -rise buildings,
often with 100 percent lot coverage and limited surface parking.
As depicted in Figure 8 -2, Existing Land Uses, in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report,
there is already Commercial Retail, Industrial, Multiple Use, Office, Single Family Residential,
and Multifamily Residential within a '/z mile of the San Luis Obispo Airport. The Airport Area
Specific Plan anticipates much greater development with annexation and construction associated
with the Chevron and other projects in the area.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 36
Exhibit B
Based on the "urbanized area" designation by the Census Bureau and the existing land use and
planned land use in the Airport Influence Area, Caltrans guidelines suggest that for the City of
San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo Airport, existing residential and noise sensitive land
uses are appropriate up to the 65 dB CNEL contour, but that new residential development and
noise sensitive uses should be limited to the 60 dB CNEL contour or less.
(iii) The Johnson Report fails to normalize sound exposure criteria for SBP.
Normalization is strongly recommended by the Handbook.
Response 29: Normalization, established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, adjusts
actual measured noise levels so that the effects of different noises on different communities can
be compared more reliably. The following Table 4A from the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook describes the type of correction that should be made based on specific
variables. While ALUC's are encouraged to consider normalization factors, the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states, "normalization is not applicable to implementation
of the noise standards for California airports. The noise standards are formal regulations that
have their own requirements separate from land use planning guidelines."
Based on the normalization factors listed in Table 4A, 0 adjustment is recommended for SBP
within the City of San Luis Obispo Urban Reserve Line.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 37
Exhibit B
TABLE 4A: ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FOR OBTAINING NORMALIZED CNEL
Added to Measured
Type of Correction /Description CNEL in dB
Seasonal Correction
Summer (or year -round operation). 0
Winter only (or windows always closed), -5
Correction for Outdoor Noise Level Measured in Absence of Intruding Noise
Quiet suburban or rural community (remote from large cities and from industrial +10
activity and trucking).
Normal suburban community (not located near industrial activity). +5
Urban residential Community (not immediately adjacent to heavily °traveled roads 0
and industrial areas).
Noisy urban residential community (near relatively busy roads or industrial areas). -5
Very noisy urban residential community. -10
Correction for Previous Exposure & Community Attitudes
No prior experience with the intruding noise.
+5
Community has had some previous exposure to intruding noise but We effort is
0
being made to control the noise. This correction may also be applied in a
situation where the community has not been exposed to the noise previously,
but the people are awware that bona fide efforts are being made to control the
noise.
Community has had considerable previous exposure to the intruding noise and
-5
the noise maker's relations with the community are good.
Community aware that operation causing noise is very necessary and it will not
-10
continue indefinitely. This correction can be applied for an operation of limited
duration and under emergency circumstances_
Pure Tone or Impulse
No pure tone or impulsive character.
0
Pure tone or impulsive character present.
+5
Notes_
• Source document uses the equivalent ❑NL metric.
• See text for guidance on application of these factors to setting maximum noise level criteria for new land use
development near airports.
• Source: U,S_ Environmental Protection Agency (1974)
Based on the "urbanized area" designation by the Census Bureau and the existing land use and
planned land use in the Airport Influence Area, Caltrans guidelines suggest that for the City of
San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo Airport, existing residential and noise sensitive land
uses are appropriate up to the 65 dB CNEL contour, but that new residential development and
noise sensitive uses should be limited to the 60 dB CNEL contour or less. This is consistent with
existing City policies.
(iv) Adoption of the 65 dB CNEL contour, as advocated by the Johnson
Report, would result in single -event noise impacts that greatly exceed the local
community's sensitivity to intrusive sound, as expressed in the recently adopted
City Noise Ordinance.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 38 Exhibit B
Response 30: The Johnson Aviation Land Use Compatibility Report is intended to validate the
noise analysis prepared by the SBP Master Plan Update EA /EIR (2006) to determine where
development potential exists as the community considers the LUCE Update. The Report does
not conclude nor advocate that the City should adopt new noise standards but rather suggests
where development types and locations are consistent with state guidance and existing City
policy.
The Noise Ordinance was last updated in 2010 with a provision to address continued violations
of the noise ordinance. Section 9.12.80 C(2) of the City's Noise code indicates that "nothing in
this section shall be construed to prohibit, restrict, penalize, enjoin or in any manner regulate the
movement of aircraft which are in all respects conducted in accordance with, or pursuant to,
applicable federal laws or regulations."
A summary of existing policies from the Noise Element of the City of San Luis Obispo General
Plan are found below:
COY of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Elenlenl
The existing CkV of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element (1996) contains a number of noise policies and standards.
These are generally summarized in Tables 4.11 -2 and 4.11 -3 below_
Land Use and Transportation Noise Sources
Table 4.11 -2 summarizes the ranges of noise e>posure, for various noise - sensitive land uses, which are considered to be
acceptable, conditionally acceptable, or unacceptable in the City of San Luis Obispo. Table 4.11 -3 summarizes maximum
transportation noise exposure levels for noise- sensitive land uses.
Table 4.11 -2 Community Noise Exposure Levels
Residences, Theatres, Auditoiiums, Music Halls
=-60
60-70
70 -85
Motels, Hotels
<60
60-75
75 -85
Schools, Libraries, HGSpitals, Nursing Hanes, Meeting Halls,
<60
60-75
75-85
Churches, Monuaries
Playgrounds
{74
70-75
75-85
Office Buildings
<60
6475
75-85
Neighborhood Parks
a65
65 -75
75 -85
Woes: CAIEe = Coln MU ), !,laovse Exiaosdre ? evel; de = dcribels; dBA = A- xVei9ht0 deci bels; en, = day -night weroge sound lem-J
I May be permitted Mt6out specific noise studies ormitigarion.
'Dak- Pop menf may t,- pernvrted if designed to nwt noise exposure standards, a fpeUfic noise surety+ is usa¢afy requitert
rDevefoprrienr w W? oeceprabk noise exposure g ere rat1y is not possrbie.
sotrrre city of San ears pllrspv C- enerof Pin n, Noise Elenxnr, 1996.
(v) The Johnson Report inappropriately characterizes, minimizes and
dismisses the record of citizen complaints regarding airport noise analysis.
Response 31: The City of San Luis Obispo requested and received noise complaint information
from the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport to fully assess the level of community concern with
airport- related, aircraft noise.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 39 Exhibit B
As shown in Table 6 -2, Noise Complaints at SBP, from the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Report, seventy -five percent of all aircraft noise complaints collected by County Airport officials
over the last five years have been generated by three individuals.
This is not meant to minimize noise impacts associated with aircraft operations but rather to
consider complaints received in context to determine whether it is a pervasive community -wide
issue or an annoyance to a limited few. This information appears to support the idea that there
are a few individuals for whom aircraft noise is a particular annoyance; not that aircraft noise
causes issues for a large segment of the population.
Table Error! No text of specified style in documentA — Noise Complaints at SBP
Noise Complaint Origin:
Noise Complaint:
Percent of
Total
Cumulative
Percent
Caller #
Engine Runups
Low Flying
Noise
Other
Overflight
Grand Total
Caller #101
3
237
7
477
724
41.1%
411%
Caller #36
1
231
185
4
49
470
26.7%
67.8%
Caller 415
44
10
2
69
125
7.1%
74.9%
Caller #83
5
34
31.
70
4.0%
78.9%
Caller #67
2
18
1 38
58
3.3%
82.2%
Caller #98
1
2
_ 1
33
37
2.1%
84.3%
Caller #56
3
16
19
1.1%
85.4%
Caller #93
5
1
13
19
1.1%
86.5%
,Caller #40
1
3
8
12
0.7%
87.2%
- Caller #95
1
7
5
5
12
0.7%
87.8%
Caller #94
3
71
101
0.6%
(vi) The airport activity forecasts utilized in the Johnson Report are
insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the SAA or to provide a basis for
effective airport compatibility planning.
Response 32: The Master Plan Update for the San Luis Obispo Airport (SBP) was adopted in
2005. The forecasts prepared for the Master Plan Update were submitted to the FAA and
approved as per FAA AC 150 - 5070 -613, Airport Master Plans.
The Environmental Assessment /Environmental Impact Report (EA /EIR) was completed in 2006.
As the basis for its noise modeling, the SBP EA /EIR used the FAA - approved forecasts prepared
for the adopted Master Plan Update as its basis for noise modeling.
These FAA- anoroved forecasts were also used in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report
nrenared by Johnson Aviation to validate the noise analysis nrenared in the SBP EA /EIR. The
Johnson Aviation Report did not generate new forecasts but rather used the future forecasts
contained in the Airport Master Plan and associated EIR to map where noise might impact land
uses.
Even though the SBP Master Plan Update forecast is based on aggressive growth at SBP, and
trends that are not in line with existing activity or the FAA's Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), it
substantiates the ultimate development of the Airport, which is shown on the FAA - approved
airport layout plan (ALP).
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 40 Exhibit B
Chapter 3, Building an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, of the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook states the following:
Page 3 -5: PUC Section 21675 (a) requires that ALUCPs be based on an airport
development plan "that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the
next 20 years." Forecasts having the required 20 -year time horizon are normally included
in airport master plans. The FAA, Caltrans, and some regional planning agencies also
prepare individual airport forecasts, some of which extend to 20 years.
Page 3 -7: An adopted airport master plan is one of the preferred sources for airport
activity forecasts and noise contours.
Page 3 -47: ALUCs are not empowered to determine what the future airfield
configuration, airport role, or activity levels will be. State statutes direct that an ALUCP
must be based upon an airport master plan.
Page 3 -47: Ultimately, state law forces ALUCs to accept plans adopted by airport
owners, even if the ALUC considers the plans either unrealistically grandiose or too
modest.
The activity forecast projected in the Airport Master Plan Update shows a level of activity that
would require annual operations to essentially double. Since the Master Plan Update is based not
solely on projected operations but also references all of the improvements required to support
those operations, the Johnson Aviation Airport Land Use Compatibility Report relies on the
Airport Master Plan Update as a valid planning tool for anticipating noise associated with airport
development to support ultimate aircraft operations for the time frame associated with the LUCE
Update.
(vii) The CNEL contours presented in the Johnson Report do not appear to
have been constructed independently by a firm with special expertise in noise
analysis. They, therefore, lack credibility for land use planning purposes.
Response 33: The noise contours and associated technical information were developed in the
San Luis Obispo Regional Airport Master Plan Update EVEIR that was adopted by the County
of San Luis Obispo in 2006. Johnson Aviation used this same technical information to validate
the originally adopted Master Plan Update noise contours using the FAA's latest version of the
Integrated Noise Model (INM). Johnson Aviation also fulfilled a request by the ALUC to
produce the 55 dB CNEL noise contour in addition to the 60 dB, 65 dB, and 70 dB CNEL noise
contours provided in the Master Plan EVEIR. The contours appear almost identical with
variations attributable to increased accuracy of aircraft profiles. These results have been
provided to the Airport Manager's consultant to independently review and verify.
(c) Safety Analysis Deficiencies
(i) The Johnson Report misrepresents the generic safety zones depicted in the
Handbook as "standards." The Handbook explicitly indicates that these generic
zones are merely starting points which may be considered by ALUCs in
formulating ALUPs. In an ALUP Update Subcommittee survey of 148 ALUPs
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 41
Exhibit B
from across California, it was found that 93.5% do not utilize the generic
Handbook zones.
Response 34: California Public Utilities Code (PUC), Section 21675(a) requires preparation of
an airport land use compatibility plan (ALUCP) for each public use airport in the State of
California, and that land use plan must be guided by the creation of safety compatibility zones as
per the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011).
While ALUCs are not mandated to use the sample zones provided in the Handbook, they are
mandated to use the Handbook's guidance to create zones that have easily definable geometric
shapes, are as compact as possible, have a distinct progression in the degree of risk represented,
and are limited to a realistic number (five or six should be adequate in most cases).
Adjustments to the safety zones recommended by the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook should be made if there are certain physical and operational characteristics of airport
runways affected by conditions such as high terrain, roads, or non - standard instrument approach
procedures. These characteristics are summarized in Table 3A of the Handbook.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 42
TABLE 9At SAFETY ZONE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
(AIRPORT OPERATIONAL VARIABLES)
The generic sets of compolibilily zones shown in Figures 3A and 3B may need to be adjusted to lake into account
various operational characteristics of a particular airport runway Among these characteristics are the following
Inslrumem Approach Procedure s —AI least within
the final two to three miles, which are of greatest
Interest for compatibility planning, the flight paths
associated with precision inshunnent approach
procedures are highly standardized Other types of
instrument approach procedures ere less uniform,
however If such procedures are available at an
airport, ALUCs should identify the flight paths
associated with them and the extent to which they
are used Procedures Ihol are regularly used should
be taken into account in the configuration of safely
zones (and in setting height limits for airspace
protection ) Types of procedures which may warrant
special consideration include:
Circling Approaches: Most mslnmne11l approach
procedures allow aircraft to circle to land at a
different runway rather than continue straight -in
to a lending on the runway for which the
approach is primarily designed When airports
have straight -in approaches to multiple runway
ends, circling approaches are seldom
necessary However, when only one shaighl -In
approach procedure is available and the wind
direction precludes landings on Oral runway'
aircraft may be forced to circle to land on m
another runway end Pilots must maintain sight
of thin rulnwtiy while circling, thus turns are
fypl.itiv IlUB1 Also the mintnunm circling
aluludu r anon loss than the troffer paAtorn
allilude Al airports where circling approaches
are common, giving considernlron to the
associated risks when selling safety zone
boundaries is appropriate
Non- Precision Approaches At Low Altitudes: Non -
precision instrument approach procedures often
involve aircraft descending to a lower altitude
farther from the runway than occurs on either
precision instrument or visual approaches An
altitude of 300 to 400 feel as much us two to three
miles from the runway is 1101 unusual The safely
hind noise) enplications of such procedures need
to be addressed at airports where they are in
common use (A need for corresponding
restrictions on the heights of objects also exists
along these routes )
Non- Precision Approaches Nor Aligned Willi The
Runway Some types of non - precision approaches
Ixmg ancraft toward "runway along a path that is
new aligned with the runway In many cases, these
procedures matey enable the aircraft to reach the
nation vicinity at which pant they Ilion proceed to
land under visual conditions In other instances,
however, transition to the runway alignment occurs
close to die runway and at a low attitude
Other Special Flight Procedures Or Limitations—
Single sided traffic patterns represent only one type
of special flight procedure or limilation that may be
established at some airports Factors such as nearby
airports, high terrain, or noise- sensitive land uses
may affect the size of the airport traffic pallern or
otherwise dictate where and at what attitude aircraft
fly
when using the airport These procedures may need
to be lakes Into account in the design of safely
compatibility zones
Runway Use By Special- Purpose Aircraft —In
addition to special Right procedures, certain spacial -
purpose types of aircraft often have their own
porticulet Right procedures Most common among
these aircraft are fire attack, agricultural, and military
airplanes Helicopters also typically have their own
special (light routes The existence of these
procedures needs to be investigated and where
warranted by the levels of usage, may need to be
considered In the shaping of safety zones
Small Aircraft Using Long Runways —When small
airplanes take off from tong runways (especially
runways m excess of 8,000 feet tenglh), it is common
practice for them to turn toward their intended
dueclion of flight before passing over the low end of
the runway When mishaps occur, the resulting
perform of accident silos will likely be more dispensed
around the runway end than is (he case with shorter
runways With short runways, accident sites lend to
be more lightly clustered around the runway end and
along the extended runway centedme because
aircrafl are stilt following the runway heading as they
begin their climb
Runways Used Predominantly In One Direction—
Most runways are used sometimes in one direction
and, at other limes, in the opposite direction
depending upon the direction of the wind Even when
used predommanlly in one direction, a busy runway
may experience a significant number of operations in
the opposite direction (for example, a runway with
100,000 total annual operations, 9090 of which are in
one direction, will still have 10,000 annual operations
in the opposite direction) Thus, in most situations,
the generic safely zones —which lake into account
both takeoffs and landings at a runway end —are
applicable However, when the number of either
takeoffs or landings at a runway end is less than
approximately 2,000 per your, adjustment of the
safety compatibility zones to reflect those
circumstances may be warranted.
Displaced Loading Thresholds —A displaced
threshold moves the lending location of aircraft down
the runway from where they would land in the
absence of the displacement The distribution pattern
of landing accident silos as shown In Appendix F
would thus shift a corresponding amount The
pattern of accident locations for aircraft taking off
toward but and of the runway does not necessarily
shill, however Whether the runway length behind
the dispinced threshold is usable (or takeoffs toward
that end of the runway is a key factor in this regard
The appropriateness of making adjustments to safely
zone locations in response to the existence of a
displaced threshold needs to be examined on a
case -by -case basis The numbers of loadings at and
takeoffs toward the runway end in question should
be considered in making this determination
Exhibit B
(ii) The Johnson Report fails to adequately analyze or address the specific,
local topographic, meteorologic and operational factors which impact aviation
safety at SBP.
Response 35: An assessment of whether any of the safety zone adjustment factors described in
Table 4A of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook apply to SBP was provided in
Section 4.3 of the Johnson Aviation Airport Land Use Compatibility Report. The findings from
the Report, concluded that no safety zone adjustments from those suggested by the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook are required, and are presented below:
• Airport Area Topography: The presence of high terrain, the edge of a precipice, or other
such features may influence the location of aircraft traffic patterns and may need to be
considered.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 43
Exhibit B
— High terrain exists in the area of SBP but does not impede the standard traffic pattern
or preclude precision and non - precision instrument approaches and departures.
Nearby Morro Bay (MQO) VOR provides positive course guidance, positive terrain
avoidance and aircraft holding for precision and non - precision instrument procedure
missed approaches. No safety zone adjustments required.
• Boundaries Based on Geographic Features: Safety zone shapes and sizes might be
adjusted in response to existing urban development such as roads, water courses, parcel
lines, etc. With the advent of graphic information systems (GIS) this approach is less
necessary than in years past.
— The City and County of San Luis Obispo employ GIS for accurate mapping purposes.
No safety zone adjustments required.
• Instrument Approach Procedure(s): Non - standard instrument procedures should be
identified, as well as the extent to which they are used.
— Circling Approaches: Circling approaches are charted for SBP including RNAV
(GPS) RWY 11, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, LOC RWY 11 and VOR or TACAN -A but
no circling north of Runway 11 -29 is allowed for any of these procedures. The
circling minimum altitudes for these procedures are at standard traffic pattern
altitudes. Even though these procedures are available, there are safer, straight -in
approaches available for both runway ends of Runway 11 -29. No safety zone
adjustments required.
— Non - Precision Approaches at Low Altitudes: Non - precision instrument approaches
are charted for SBP including RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, LOC
RWY 11 and VOR or TACAN -A but the minimum descent altitudes for these
procedures preclude descending below standard traffic pattern altitudes within the
airport influence area. No safety zone adjustments required.
— Non - Precision Approaches Not Aligned with the Runway: One non - precision
instrument approach charted for SBP (VOR or TACAN -A) is not aligned with a
runway but no circling north of Runway 11 -29 is allowed for this procedure. The
circling minimum altitudes for this procedure are at or above standard traffic pattern
altitudes. Even though this procedure is available, there are safer, straight -in
approaches available for both runway ends of Runway 11 -29. No safety
adjustments required.
• Other Special Flight Procedures or Limitations: Single -sided traffic patterns, nearby
airports, high terrain, or noise - sensitive land uses may dictate where and at what altitude
aircraft fly and may need to be taken into account during safety zone delineation.
— Voluntary noise abatement procedures are established for SBP but when used,
increase aircraft altitudes and increase safe operating altitudes. No safety
adjustments required.
• Runway Use By Special - Purpose Aircraft: Fire attack, agricultural, military airplanes,
and helicopters often have their own flight procedures, which need to be considered
during the shaping of safety zones.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 44
Exhibit B
— Military transport-type aircraft and helicopters make use of the SBP runways.
Military aircraft fly standard arrival and departure procedures and helicopters
likewise fly standard procedures for approach, departure and closed traffic patterns.
No safety zone adjustments required.
• Small Aircraft Using Long Runways: When small airplanes take off from long runways
(especially runways in excess of 8,000 feet in length), it is common practice for them to
turn toward their intended direction of flight before passing over the far end of the
runway, which can create a safety issue.
— The longest runway at SBP is 6,100 feet long and is considered a standard general
aviation runway (less than 8,000 feet long). The presence of an air traffic control
tower and voluntary noise abatement procedures preclude early turns before an
aircraft reaches the end of the departure runway and prior to reaching safe turning
altitudes. No safety zone adjustments required.
• Runways Used Predominantly in One Direction: This factor does not apply to any of the
runways at SBP. No safety zone adjustments required.
• Displaced Landing Thresholds: Runway 11 has a displaced threshold of 800 feet and
Runway 29 has a displaced threshold of 500 feet. The safety zones have not been
adjusted to reduce their length commensurate with these displaced thresholds thereby
increasing the safety factor for each runway. Safety Zone Reduction Possible.
23. Based on the foregoing, any and all of the Findings that rely on information and
documentation contained within the Johnson Report and deemed deficient in the ALUC Report
do not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and are, therefore,
inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 36: The City strongly disagrees that the analysis presented in the Airport
Compatibility Report does not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Section 21676 (b) and
21670. Both the City and Consultant that prepared the Airport Compatibility Report spent a great
deal of time ensuring that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance material was followed,
this includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport
Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable
Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program, FAA AC
150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983), FAA AC 150-5190 -
4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports (1987), FAA Order
8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections
5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California Public Utilities Code.
The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE Update follow precisely
the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA - approved Airport Layout
Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA/EIR,
and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety
zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 "provide for the orderly development
of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote
the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to
Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems... protect public
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 45 Exhibit B
health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land
use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within
areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible
uses."
The City has also followed all the requirements of PUC Section 21676 (b) regarding referral of
proposed actions to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and the right to overrule the
ALUC if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of
this article stated in PUC Section 21670.
The Council adopted preliminary findings on August 19, 2014 and those findings were
transmitted (and received) by the ALUC on August 20, 2014 and by Caltrans on August 22,
2014. Responses were received from Caltrans on September 22, 2014 and by the ALUC on
September 19, 2014. The Council did not consider action until October 21, 2014 — 60 days after
transmittal of the findings. Final action will occur on December 2, 2014 at the earliest, therefore,
the City's action is consistent with PUC Section 21676(b).
ii. Findings Based on Consistency with the Handbook
23.5 Of the forty two (42) Findings, twenty four (24) cite consistency with the Handbook as
proof that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the purposes of the
SAA. As discussed in Paragraph 22 and Exhibit B and in correspondence from Caltrans dated
September 12, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by this reference, the
Johnson Report is not consistent with the Handbook. Moreover, even assuming such consistency
with the Handbook arguendo, findings that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are
consistent with the Handbook are not, and are not synonymous with, the findings required by
PUC Section 21676(b). Rather, PUC Section 21676(b) requires that the City adopt findings that
the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the purposes set forth in PUC
Section 21670. As discussed in Paragraph 17 supra, the purposes set forth in Section 21670
mandate that the City adopt findings that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates do not
permit any noise and safety hazards not permitted under the ALUP.
Response 37: The City strongly disagrees that the Johnson Report and LUCE Update is not
consistent with the Handbook. Both the City and Consultant that prepared the Airport
Compatibility Report spent a great deal of time ensuring that all Federal, State, and local laws
and guidance material was followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -6B, Airport Master
Plans, FAA AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR)
Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise
Compatibility Planning Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility
Planning for Airports (1983), FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit
Height of Objects around Airports (1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6,
and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California Public Utilities Code.
The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE Update follow precisely
the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA - approved Airport Layout
Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 46
Exhibit B
EA /EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook on the
delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 "provide for
the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these
airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise
standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and
safety problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion
of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to
excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these
areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
The City strongly disagrees that Johnson Report and LUCE Update is not consistent with PUC
Section 21676(b) or Section 21670. Nor does Section 21670 mandate that the City adopt
findings that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are more restrictive than the Airport
Land Use Plan in order to show consistency with the State Aeronautics Act when acting to
overrule the Airport Land Use Commission determination.
Section 21676(b) states: "Prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the
adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary
established by the airport land use commission pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall
first refer the proposed action to the commission. If the commission determines that the proposed
action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The
local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the commission by a two - thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with
the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to
overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the
division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may
provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed
decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this
time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the
division or the commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency
governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the public
record of any final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by a
two - thirds vote of the governing body." The Council adopted preliminary findings on August
19, 2014 and those findings were transmitted (and received) by the ALUC on August 20, 2014
and by Caltrans on August 22, 2014. Responses were received from Caltrans on September 22,
2014 and by the ALUC on September 19, 2014. The Council did not consider action until
October 21, 2014 — 60 days after transmittal of the findings. Final action will occur on December
2, 2014 at the earliest, therefore, the City is consistent with PUC Section 21676(b).
Section 21670 states:
"(a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that:
(1) It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in
this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives
of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the
creation of new noise and safety problems.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 47 Exhibit B
(2) It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the
orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent
that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.
(b) In order to achieve the purposes of this article, every county in which there is located an
airport which is served by a scheduled airline shall establish an airport land use commission.
Every county, in which there is located an airport which is not served by a scheduled airline, but
is operated for the benefit of the general public, shall establish an airport land use commission,
except that the board of supervisors of the county may, after consultation with the appropriate
airport operators and affected local entities and after a public hearing, adopt a resolution finding
that there are no noise, public safety, or land use issues affecting any airport in the county which
require the creation of a commission and declaring the county exempt from that requirement.
The board shall, in this event, transmit a copy of the resolution to the Director of Transportation.
For purposes of this section, "commission" means an airport land use commission. Each
commission shall consist of seven members to be selected as follows..."
The remainder of Section 21670 defines who the members of each commission shall be and how
they shall be appointed. Section 21670 does not mandate that the City adopt findings that the
LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are more restrictive than the Airport Land Use Plan in
order to show consistency with the State Aeronautics Act when acting to overrule the Airport
Land Use Commission determination.
24. Based on the foregoing, any and all of the Findings that simply cite to consistency with
the Handbook do not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and
are, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 38: As described in the previous repose (Response 31) the Johnson Report (Airport
Land Use Compatibility Report) and the LUCE Update meet the requirements set forth in PUC
Sections 21676(b) and Section 21670 and support the City's overrule. The law provides that the
findings must show that the proposed local agency action "is consistent with the purposes of this
article stated in Section 21670." The Handbook provides guidance regarding land use
compatibility consistent with the purposes of Section 21670. Therefore, consistency with the
Handbook requirements imply consistency with the Aeronautics Act and vice versa.
Both the City and Consultant that prepared the Airport Compatibility Report spent a great deal of
time ensuring that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance material was followed, this
includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -613, Airport Master Plans, FAA AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design
(2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace
(1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1,
Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983), FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model
Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports (1987), FAA Order 8260.313
(June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections 5001 to
5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California Public Utilities Code.
25. The language contained within PUC Section 21674.7 supports the above characterization
and role of the Handbook. Subsection (a) provides that an ALUC that formulates adopts or
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 48
Exhibit B
amends an ALUP shall be guided by information contained within the Handbook. In addition
and more telling subsection (b) provides as follows:
It is the intent of the Legislature to discourage incompatible land uses near existing
airports. Therefore, prior to granting permits for the renovation or remodeling of an
existing building, structure, or facility, and before the construction of a new building, it is
the intent of the Legislature that local agencies be guided by the height, use noise, safety,
and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations, as established by this
article, and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook [ ... ] to the extent that
the criteria has been incorporated into the plan prepared by a commission pursuant to
Section 21675 (emphasis added).
Although the City often cites to subsection (b) to support its reliance on the Handbook, it always
omits the last and vital clause. In addition, the Handbook itself provides as follows:
This Handbook applies to ALUCs established under the SAA, who are charged with
providing for compatible land use planning in the vicinity of each existing and new
public use airport within their jurisdiction (see Handbook, page vii) (emphasis added).
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the purpose of the Handbook is to guide ALUCs in the
adoption of ALUPs and to guide Cities only to the extent that the provisions of the Handbook
have been incorporated into the AL UP by the ALUC.
Response 39: PUC Section 21674.7 also states "This subdivision does not limit the authority of
local agencies to overrule commission actions or recommendations pursuant to Sections 21676,
21676.5, or 21677." The City can overrule after making specific findings that the proposed
action is consistent with Section 21670, which states "(1) It is in the public interest to provide for
the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these
airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards
adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems.
(2) It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the
orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent
that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
The remainder of Section 21670 defines who the members of each commission shall be and how
they shall be appointed.
The City has provided much evidence that its findings and proposed action is consistent with
Section 21670 by ensuring that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance material was
followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA AC 150/5300 -13A,
Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable
Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program, FAA AC
150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983), FAA AC 150-5190 -
4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports (1987), FAA Order
8260.313 (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections
5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California Public Utilities Code.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 49 Exhibit B
The City has also provided much evidence that shows how certain aspects of the ALUP are not
consistent with the Handbook or Section 21675 of the PUC, which requires the following: "The
commission's airport land use compatibility plan shall include and shall be based on a long -range
master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the
Department of Transportation that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the
next 20 years."
To meet CEQA requirements, an EA /EIR was completed for the SBP Master Plan Update in
2006. The EA/EIR included a comprehensive analysis of noise, using the forecasts prepared for
the Airport Master Plan. This noise analysis was validated in the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Report also using the forecasts prepared for the Airport Master Plan. Although it is stated in the
ALUP that data was constructed from information and projections presented in the Airport
Maser Plan, the noise contours presented in the ALUP were cited as those of a noise study
completed by Brown - Buntin Associates in April, 2001. As seen in Figure 6, the noise contours
in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared for the Airport Master Plan, and create
land use policies that are radically more restrictive than those recommended by the Handbook.
Section 21669 states "The department shall adopt noise standards governing the operation of
aircraft and aircraft engines for airports operating under a valid permit issued by the department
to an extent not prohibited by federal law. The standards shall be based upon the level of
noise acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of the airport."
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 50
Exhibit B
Furthermore, the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook is not only intended for ALUCs and to
guide Cities only to the extent that the provisions of the Handbook have been incorporated into
the ALUP by the ALUC. The Handbook states that it is intended to "1) provide information to
ALUCs, their staffs, airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants, and the public, 2) to identify the
requirements and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents, and 3) define
exemptions where applicable.
26. The fact that the City repeatedly refers in its Findings to the Handbook as the standard for
its compliance with the SAA evidences its intent to substitute land use provisions contained with
the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates for the provisions contained within the ALUP, thereby
creating its own airport land use compatibility plan, as discussed in Paragraph 11 supra.
Response 40: The City has not developed its own airport land use compatibility plan for SBP.
Rather, it is proceeding with an overrule in those areas that are inconsistent with the ALUP
policies as required by law.
The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the
airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated technical information on
the progress of airport development and operations since the completion of the most recent San
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 51 Exhibit B
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the current ALUP does
not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical information system (GIS)
mapping of the Airport's safety zones, noise impact areas and overflight areas, which the current
ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours provided in the ALUP state they are based on a
Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001, not on the 2006 EA /EIR completed for the Airport
Master Plan Update.
The purpose of The Handbook is to "1) provide information to ALUCs, their staffs, airport
proprietors, cities, counties, consultants, and the public, 2) to identify the requirements and
procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents, and 3) define exemptions
where applicable.
27. As described in Paragraph 2 supra, the SAA calls for the creation of a single- purpose (or
stand - alone) ALUC comprised of seven (7) members within each county having an airport
operated for the benefit of the general public with limited exception (see PUC Section 21670(b)).
The County does not fall within any of the limited exceptions, and the ALUC was created
consistent with the requirements of the SAA. It should be noted that although neither of the
alternatives set forth in the SAA are applicable to the County, the alternative commonly known
as the "designated body" alternative (PUC Section 21670.1 (a)) requires at least two (2) members
of the alternate body to have aviation expertise and the alternative commonly known as the
"designated agency" alternative (PUC Section 21670.1(c)) requires that Caltrans determine that
the agency's review process is consistent with the SAA. The City Council has not been
designated as the body to carry out land use planning within the County and no evidence has
been provided indicating that it or its proposed processes meet the requirements placed on the
alternatives set forth in the PUC.
Response 41: The City is not contending that it is the ALUC for the County. Rather, the City is
complying with the requirements of an overrule with respect to the finding of inconsistency
made by the ALUC concerning the LUCE Update and in demonstrating compliance with the
State Aeronautics Act.
iii. Findings Related to Safety Impacts
28. As discussed in more detail infra, none of the Findings related to safety include a finding
that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates do not expose persons living and working in areas
adjacent to SBP to greater aviation safety risks than exist under the current ALUP.
Response 42: The findings must be consistent with the purposes as set forth in Section 21670.
There is no requirement that the policies not expose persons to aviation safety risks greater than
exist under the ALUP. Rather, the findings must document any inconsistencies between the
proposed land use action and safety compatibility criteria in the ALUP, describe the measures
taken to assure that risks associated with the land use proposal are held to a minimum and
indicate that the proposed land use action falls within a level of acceptable risk considered to be
a community norm. Again, the key words are minimize and excessive - not consistency with the
current ALUP - otherwise, there would be no need for an overrule option under the Public
Utilities Code.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 52 Exhibit B
29. Moreover, such a finding cannot be made as the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates
allow dense residential development within a few hundred yards of the SBP perimeter which is
not permitted under the current ALUP. Aircraft overlying these homes will be at low altitude,
with little opportunity to recover or to avoid developed residential areas on the ground in the
event of an emergency. Pilots operating these craft will be engaged in relatively high demand
activities associated with landing or take -off, a situation that will be greatly aggravated during
inclement weather. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, the SAA acknowledges that
adequate evaluation of aviation safety risks can only be carried out by a body, such as the
ALUC, whose members have expertise in the field of aeronautics. Reliance on the advice of a
single consultant does not provide adequate assurance that public safety will be protected.
Response 43: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well -
established federal and state laws and regulations. Development envisioned in the LUCE update
includes residential development in the area covered by the Airport Land Use Plan. Thorough
evaluation and application of safety criteria was based upon guidance from Federal, State, and
local laws and guidance material including: FAA AC 150/5070 -613, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.313 (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code.
The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65 dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible
with urban residential land uses. It should also be noted that on occasion, local considerations
outweigh noise impacts and result in decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow
residential development in locations where this use would normally be considered incompatible.
It should also be noted that the City has conditioned residential development upon dedication of
an avigation easement and requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure
that aircraft noise is reduced to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted
that the City is limiting any new residential development to CNEL 60dB — consistent with
existing noise guidelines in effect throughout the rest of the City. Furthermore, the SAA does not
state that adequate evaluation of aviation safety risks can only be carried out by a body, such as
the ALUC, whose members have expertise in the field of aeronautics. The SAA states, "if the
board of supervisors of a county and each affected city in that county each makes a
determination that proper land use planning pursuant to this article can be accomplished pursuant
to this subdivision, then a commission need not be formed in that county." In addition, the
overrule process itself provides an avenue for a local jurisdiction to evaluate the risks associated
with proposed development. The City would also like to correct that Johnson Aviation is not a
single consultant, rather a professional aviation consulting firm that draws from the expertise of a
variety of aviation subject matter experts as projects warrant.
30. Based on the foregoing, any and all of the Findings assessing the safety impacts of the
LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update do not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections
21676(b) and 21670 and are, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 53 Exhibit B
Response 44: As Stated in Response #36, the City is fully compliant with the requirements set
forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its overrule.
iv. Findings Related to Noise Impacts
31. As discussed in more detail infra, none of the Findings related to noise include a finding
that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates do not expose persons living and working in areas
adjacent to SBP to greater aviation noise impacts than exist under the current ALUP.
Response 45: The findings must be consistent with the purposes as set forth in Section 21670.
There is no requirement that the policies not expose persons to aviation noise greater than exist
under the ALUP. Rather, the findings must document any inconsistencies between the proposed
land use action and noise compatibility criteria in the ALUP and describe the measures taken to
ensure that the proposed land use action falls within a level of acceptable noise levels — in this
instance, 60 dB CNEL for new residential uses. Again, the key words are minimize and
excessive - not consistency with the current ALUP - otherwise, there would be no need for an
overrule option under the Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update are consistent with Federal, State, and local laws and
guidance material. This includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA AC
150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.313 (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA /EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 "provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state
and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the
California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation
of new noise and safety problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the
orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent
that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
32. Moreover, such a finding cannot be made based on a comparison of the noise policies
contained within the ALUP and the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates as discussed in
Paragraph 67 infra.
Response 46: The noise contours presented in the ALUP are cited as those from a noise study
completed by Brown - Buntin Associates in April, 2001, not the noise analysis that was completed
for the Airport Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA /EIR.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 54 Exhibit B
As seen in Figure 6, the noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared
for the Airport Master Plan Update. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum
acceptable residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from the
Brown - Buntin study (a study that cannot be located), instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR.
The Land Use Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure
using the noise contours from this Brown - Buntin study instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR.
The Margarita Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are
also based on the noise contours from the un- locatable Brown - Bunting study instead of the
Airport Master Plan EIR.
This is not consistent with State Statues that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan.
33. Neither the Johnson Report nor the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates discuss or
document current evidence related to the adverse health and social impacts of airport noise,
including evidence indicating that the proposed 60 dB CNEL contour is insufficient to
adequately protect the public from excessive noise impacts. Prolonged exposure to elevated
noise levels has been shown to be associated with a number of health effects, including hearing
impairment, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, annoyance, sleep disturbance, decreased
school performance, stress, increased incidence of workplace accidents and anti - social behaviors
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 55 Exhibit B
(e.g. aggression). A recent study of residents living near the Heathrow Airport in London
demonstrates that exposure to an airport noise level of as low as 63 dB Ldn is associated with a
significant increase in the rate of hospitalization for cardio events (see Hansell, AL. BMJ
2013:5432 doi: 10.1 136/bmj.f5432).5 In another study of over one million (1,000,000) people
living near the airport in Cologne, Germany, a daytime exposure to airport noise levels of 60 dB
increased the incidence of coronary heart diseases by sixty one percent (61 %) in men and by
eighty percent (80 %) among women (see Todlicher Uirm. Spiegel, 51:45 14 December 2009
(German)).
Response 47: For the purposes of federal regulations, all land uses are considered compatible
with noise levels of less than DNL 65 dB. At higher noise levels, selected land uses are also
deemed acceptable, depending upon the nature of the use and the degree of structural noise
attenuation provided. HUD guidelines also state that noise exposure of DNL 65 dB or less is
acceptable and that between 65 and 75 dB is normally acceptable if appropriate sound
attenuation is provided. The California Airport Noise Regulations establish 65 dB CNEL as the
level of noise acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of an airport. The City is
proposing to maintain its existing noise levels in the airport area that apply to the remainder of
the City — namely 60 dB CNEL for new residential uses. SBP does not have, and never will
have, the same level of activity as Cologne Airport which handled nearly 10 million passengers
in 2013, or Heathrow Airport which handled 72.3 million passengers the same year.
34. Analysis of noise complaints received by SBP between January of 2009 and March of
2013 reveals that virtually all noise complaints were from locations outside of the 60 dB CNEL
contour set forth in the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates. This suggests that, for many
residents of the community, the proposed 60 db CNEL contour is not sufficient to adequately
protect the public from excessive noise impacts.
Response 48: Many people are sensitive to the frequent presence of aircraft overhead even at
noise low levels. These reactions can mostly be expressed in the form of annoyance. Often,
noise complaints come from locations beyond any of the defined noise contours. Therefore,
given the extensive geographic area over which noise complaints are often made, notification is
often the best compatibility criteria to use. The City has determined that it is not practicable to
avoid development in all areas identified as noise complaint locations.
The City of San Luis Obispo requested and received noise complaint information from the San
Luis Obispo Regional Airport to fully assess the level of community concern with airport-
related, aircraft noise.
As shown in Table 6 -2, Noise Complaints at SBP, from the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Report, seventy -five percent of all aircraft noise complaints collected by County Airport officials
over the last five years have been generated by three individuals.
This is not meant to minimize noise impacts associated with aircraft operations but rather to
consider complaints received in context to determine whether it is a pervasive community -wide
issue or an annoyance to a limited few. This information appears to support the idea that there
are a few individuals for whom aircraft noise is a particular annoyance; not that aircraft noise
causes issues for a large segment of the population.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 56
Table 6 2 — Noise Complaints at SBP
Table Error! No text of specified style in document. -2 — Noise Complaints at SBP
Exhibit B
Noise Complaint Origin:
Noise Complaint:
Percent of
Total
Cumulative
Percent
Caller #
Engine Runups
ILow Flying
Noise
Other
Overflight
Grand Total
Caller #101
3
237
71
477
724
41.1%
41.1%
Caller #36
1
231
185
4
49
470
26.7%
67.8%
Caller #15
44
10
2
69
125
7.1%
74.9%
Caller #83
5
34
31
70
4.0%
78.9%
Caller #67
2
18
38
58
3.3%
82.2%
Caller #98
1
2
1
33
37
2.1%
84.3%
Caller #56
3
16
19
1.1%
85.4%
Caller #93
5
1
1 13
19
1.1%
86.5%
Caller #40
1
3
8
12
0.7%
87.2%
Caller 495
11
1
1 5
121
0.7%
87.8%
Caller #94
3
1 71
IGI
0.6%1
88.4%
35. Based on the foregoing, any and all of the Findings assessing the noise impacts of the
LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update do not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections
21676(b) and 21670 and are, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 49: The City disagrees that its LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update does not meet
the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670. The City has provided much
evidence that its findings and proposed action is consistent with Section 21670 by ensuring that
all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance material was followed, this includes: FAA AC
150/5070 -6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal
Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150,
Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and
Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983), FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance
to Limit Height of Objects around Airports (1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to
21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 "provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state
and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the
California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation
of new noise and safety problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the
orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent
that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
Section 21676(b) states: "Prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the
adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary
established by the airport land use commission pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 57 Exhibit B
first refer the proposed action to the commission. If the commission determines that the proposed
action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The
local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the commission by a two - thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with
the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to
overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the
division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may
provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed
decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this
time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the
division or the commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local
agency governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the
public record of any final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted
by a two - thirds vote of the governing body."
The City has followed all the requirements of PUC Section 21676 (b) regarding referral of
proposed actions to the land use commission, and the right to overrule the land use commission
if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article
stated in Section 21670.
The Council adopted preliminary findings on August 19, 2014 and those findings were
transmitted (and received) by the ALUC on August 20, 2014 and by Caltrans on August 22,
2014. Responses were received from Caltrans on September 22, 2014 and by the ALUC on
September 19, 2014. The Council will not consider final action until October 21, 2014 — 60 days
after transmittal of the findings. Therefore, the City is consistent with PUC Section 21676(b).
V. Findings Attacking the Validity of the Current ALUP
36. During each revision of the ALUP, the ALUC has consulted extensively with the City
and County and has provided extraordinary opportunities for public comment. The ALUP, in its
current form, has been in force for nine (9) years. The ALUC vigorously rejects the contention
made throughout the Findings that the ALUP is inadequate in form or in content and notes that a
review of the current ALUP by Caltrans found that the ALUP is in full compliance with all
requirements of the SAA and with the recommendations contained within the Handbook.
Response 50: ALUCs exercise approval authority over certain types of local government land
use actions as specified in the Aeronautics Act. Local governments like the City also must abide
by the provisions of the airport land use planning statutes. Nevertheless, the law only gives
ALUCs the powers to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses (Section 21674(a))
and to coordinate compatibility planning efforts at the state, regional, and local levels (Section
21674(b)). ALUCs are not implementing agencies in the manner of local governments. Nor do
they issue permits for a project such as those typically required both by local governments and
various state and federal agencies. The ability of ALUCs to ensure implementation of their plans
is thus limited from both a statutory and a practical perspective. Specifically, and for example,
ALUC decisions can be overruled by the City. Although the City must adopt findings and take
other steps in order to overrule the ALUC, they have that authority. The City is not required to
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 58 Exhibit B
show that the ALUP is inadequate; rather, it must show that its policies are consistent with the
purposes of Section 21670.
37. Based on the foregoing, any and all of the Findings that are based on assertions that the
current ALUP is deficient are gratuitous and inadequate to support the overrule, because they do
not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Section 21676(b) and 21670.
Response 51: The City's findings are not based on the assertion that the ALUP is inadequate;
rather the City's findings demonstrate that the City's policies are consistent with the purposes of
the statutes as set forth in PUC Section 21670. The City also meets the requirements set forth in
PUC Section 21676(b) as they have notified and referred all proposed actions to the commission
as per the requirements of Section 21676(b).
vi. Findings Containing Demonstrable Errors of Fact
38. As discussed in more detail infra, a number of the Findings contain demonstrable errors
of fact and/or merely state a conclusion without identifying the factual evidence or chain of
reasoning leading to the stated conclusion.
Response 52: The City has documented all factual evidence and chain of reasoning for its
Findings as per the requirements of Federal, State, and local laws and guidance so strongly that
both the Caltrans and the ALUC have accused the City of preparing a "defacto airport land use
compatibility plan for SBP" which the City has not. Rather, the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Report establishes the basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo
General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides
updated technical information on the progress of airport development and operations since the
completion of the most recent San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan
Update, which the current ALUP does not provide. Supporting this updated information is
accurate graphical information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport's safety zones, noise impact
areas and overflight areas, which the current ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours
provided in the ALUP are based on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001, not on the 2006
EA/EIR completed for the Airport Master Plan Update. The City has also prepared an
Environmental Impact Report for its LUCE Update as per the requirements of CEQA and to
further show its factual evidence and chain of reasoning for all its stated conclusions.
39. Based upon the legal requirements for an adequate finding set forth in Paragraph 18
supra, all such findings do not meet the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and
21670 and are, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 53: As stated in Response #36, and repeated in several other responses, the City fully
meets the requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified
in its overrule.
B. Finding Specific Comments
i. Finding 1
40. Finding 1 provides as follows:
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 59
Exhibit B
The policies and programs of the draft LUCE Update, including the provisions of the
Airport Overlay Zoning regulations, are based upon the City of San Luis Obispo General
Plan Update, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), and Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report (Compatibility Report) prepared by Johnson Aviation dated August
11, 2014. The Compatibility Report, which contains the supporting technical analysis and
documents precisely how the draft LUCE Update complies with the State Aeronautics
Act (SAA), as set forth in Division 9 (Aviation) of the Public Utilities Code (PUC), and
the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook), is incorporated herein
by reference.
41. Analysis of Finding 1:
(a) The assertion that the "policies and programs of the draft LUCE update [ ... ] are
based upon the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Update and Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE)" is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the proposal
to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency conforms to the requirements of
PUC Section 21670.
Response 54: Section 1 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact.
(b) The assertion that the "policies and programs of the draft LUCE update [ ... ] are
based upon the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report (Compatibility Report) prepared
by Johnson Aviation dated August 11, 2014" is insufficient to support the proposal to
overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency because:
(i) The Johnson Report does not include any evidence that the policies set
forth therein (and reflected in the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates) will
result in no new noise and safety impacts as compared to the ALUP.
Response 55: Section 1 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact.
(ii) As discussed in Paragraph 22 supra and set forth in Exhibit D, analysis of
the Johnson Report by the ALUC revealed numerous omissions and deficiencies
with regard to application of the standards for airport land use planning contained
in the Handbook.
Response 56: Section 1 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact.
(c) Finding 1 is conclusory and not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Response 57: Section 1 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact.
(d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 1 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 58: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 60
ii. Finding 2
42. Finding 2 provides as follows:
Exhibit B
As evidenced by the Compatibility [Johnson] Report, the Airport- related policies and
programs contained in the Draft Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) and
implementing Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) zoning regulations provide adequate
measures to "protect public health, safety and welfare" and "minimize the public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards" near the Airport "to the extent that these
areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," pursuant to Public Utilities Code
Section 21670(a)(2).
43. Analysis of Finding 2:
(a) Finding 2 significantly misrepresents the requirements of PUC Section
21670(a)(2). The actual wording of the statute first requires "the orderly expansion of
airports" (emphasis added). In stark contrast to this requirement, the LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance Updates contain no provisions to ensure the orderly expansion of SBP. On the
contrary, the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) provisions of the Zoning Ordinance Update
appear to be based on a policy of minimizing the future potential for expansion of
services and operations.
Response 59: The proposed AOZ provides purpose and intent statements that do address on-
going viability and orderly expansion of the airport. Specifically, 17.57.010 B and C
respectively state: "Ensure that land uses and development within the Airport Overlay Zone are
compatible with existing and future airport operations" and "Prohibit the establishment of
incompatible uses and further expansion of incompatible uses which could detrimentally affect
long term economic vitality of the airport; and to avoid or minimize exposure of persons to
potential hazards associated with current and future airport operations." The City has considered
all relevant facts regarding airport land use compatibility and safety as well as balanced the
City's other land use and circulation considerations (such as the desire to promote compact urban
infill development within the existing urban reserve line) in its proposed decision to overrule the
ALUC determination in this matter. When making land use decisions, the City has a broader set
of issues to consider in addition to airport compatibility. This is why the statutes provide that the
City may overrule the ALUC determination, and in this case, an overrule is particularly
appropriate because the ALUC has not established a solid foundation for their land use policies.
The Handbook, Page 4 -17 also offers a note that is particularly appropriate for consideration at
San Luis Obispo: "Note that this urban versus rural distinction is not limited just to differences
between one airport and another, it may also be true between various portions of individual
airport's environs. Consequently, it may be reasonable for compatibility criteria to allow
comparatively intensive development and/or infill development in one part of an airport's
vicinity, but not in another. If an ALUC chooses to take this approach, however, sufficient
reasoning should be provided."
The City of San Luis Obispo has thoughtfully addressed this approach suggested by the
Handbook in the course of its LUCE process. The City has likewise reached out to the ALUC
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 61 Exhibit B
for over two years to bring these ideas to the table for consideration. After numerous friendly
requests, the City was forced to make a Public Records Act request of both the ALUC2 and
Caltrans3 to attempt to simply review a copy of the proposed update to the ALUC's Airport Land
Use Plan (ALUP). Despite these extraordinary lengths by the City to participate in the ALUP
update process, both the ALUC and Caltrans refused to provide a copy of the ALUP update.
Only after the City announced its intent to overrule the ALUC determination on the LUCE did
the ALUC finally make a public release of a copy of their draft ALUP. This approach does not
demonstrate an open and inclusive planning process. The City maintains that moving forward
based on logic, facts and sound planning principles is the best option available, and hopes the
ALUC will be open to this approach as the ALUP is updated so that both the community and the
ALUC can work towards a common goal.
(b) The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would permit the establishment of
residential and other highly airport- incompatible land uses at sites that are subject to
significant airport noise and safety impacts and which are currently devoted to
agriculture, open space or other airport- compatible uses. In comparison with the ALUP,
the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would result in additional persons being
exposed to airport- related noise and safety hazards. This is inconsistent with the stated
purpose of the SAA to minimize such exposure.
Response 60: The facts contained within the Master Plan and the associated EIR, which have
not been incorporated by the ALUC into the ALUP as required by state law, do not support this
conclusion.
(c) The Johnson Report is insufficient to support the proposal to overrule the ALUC's
determination of inconsistency for the reasons set forth in Paragraphs 22 -23 and 41 supra.
Response 61: See City's Responses to Paragraphs 22 -23.
(d) Finding 2 is conclusory and not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Response 62: See City's Responses to Paragraphs 22 -23.
(e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 2 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 63: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
iii. Finding 3
44. Finding 3 provides as follows:
2 Public Records Act request citation of ALUC for copy of ALUP update...
3 Public Records Act request citation of Caltrans for copy of ALUP update...
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 62
Exhibit B
Historically, the City deferred to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and County -
adopted Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for airport land use compatibility determinations.
In recent years, however, errors and omissions within the ALUP have become apparent.
The City now considers the ALUP to be flawed and outdated, with policies that are not
based on facts. The ALUP does not comply with the public health and safety
requirements of the State Aeronautics Act.
45. Analysis of Finding 3:
(a) The City has no authority to evaluate the adequacy of the ALUP. This authority
is reserved to Caltrans (see PUC Section 21675(d)).
Response 64: The Division is not required to determine whether or not an ALUP meets the
requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. Rather, Caltrans is only required to provide approval
for the ALUC to use an ALP (instead of a master plan) for purposes of compatibility planning.
City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 210 Cal.App.3d 1277.
Caltrans does not have approval authority over an ALUP.
(b) The current ALUP was developed and adopted with the full participation of the
City. During the formulation of the ALUP, the ALUC met on numerous occasions with
representatives of the CDD and the draft ALUP was available for public review for over
one (1) year prior to its adoption. Through this process, the City was afforded ample
opportunity to identify any "errors," "omissions," "flaws," or "policies that are not based
on facts." Having failed to provide comment or criticism at the appropriate time,
principles of equity bar the City from challenging or wholly disregarding the adopted
ALUP.
Response 65: The fact remains that the ALUP is not based upon the County- adopted Master
Plan and the associated EIR covering noise impacts. The ALUC and Caltrans acknowledges this
fact in its responses to the City's Draft Findings in its Intent to Overrule. Simply restating the
process for the last update of the ALUP does not rehabilitate the failings of the current plan.
(c) At the specific request of the ALUC, Caltrans has reviewed and analyzed the
current ALUP for SBP and has found it to be in full compliance with the SAA and the
current version of the Handbook. In contrast to the City, Caltrans did not find the ALUP
to contain "errors and omissions" nor to be "flawed and outdated, with policies that are
not based on facts."
Response 66: The Division is not required to determine whether or not an ALUP meets the
requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. Rather, Caltrans is only required to provide approval
for the ALUC to use an ALP (instead of a master plan) for purposes of compatibility planning.
City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 210 Cal.App.3d 1277.
The Division does not have approval authority over an ALUP.
(d) The criticisms leveled at the current ALUP by Finding 3 do not speak to the
purposes of the SAA nor do they demonstrate that the draft proposed LUCE will be as
effective as the ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to airport noise and safety
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 63
Exhibit B
hazards. Finding 3, therefore, is not relevant to the proposed overrule of the ALUC's
determination of inconsistency.
Response 67: Section 3 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated. This fact is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments
to the City's Draft Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(e) Finding 3 is conclusory and not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Response 68: Section 3 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that is supported by the full
body of materials presented by the City regarding the ALUP.
(f) Based on the foregoing, Finding 3 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 69: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
iv. Finding 4
46. Finding 4 provides as follows:
The "Airport Planning Area" defined within the Existing ALUP is identical to the
planning area identified in the ALUP as originally adopted in 1977. In 37 years, the
safety zones in this Existing ALUP have not been updated.
47. Analysis of Finding 4:
(a) Although the outer boundary of the Airport Planning Area (in the current ALUP)
is identical to the Airport Planning Area established in 1977, the shape and size of the
safety zones in the existing ALUP are very different from those defined in the 1977
ALUP and are wholly consistent with the current Caltrans' recommendations. In sum, the
assertion that "In 37 years, the safety zones in the Existing ALUP have not been updated"
is false.
Response 70: See Section 2.3 of the ALUP, "The dimensions of this area were defined in 1977
and have not changed."
(b) As above, the criticisms leveled at the current ALUP in Finding 4 do not speak to
the purposes of the SAA nor do they demonstrate that LUCE and Zoning Ordinance
Updates will be as effective as the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to
airport noise and safety hazards. Finding 4, therefore, is not relevant to the proposed
overrule of the ALUC's determination of inconsistency.
Response 71: Section 4 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 64 Exhibit B
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City's Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 4 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and.is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 72: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
V. Finding 5
48. Finding 5 provides as follows:
Safety zones designated in the existing ALUP are not accurately aligned with the San
Luis Obispo Airport runways and they do not reflect runway length changes constructed
in recent years and depicted on the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP).
49. Analysis of Finding 5:
(a) The alignment of safety zones with runway headings depicted by the analog maps
within the existing ALUP is as precise as was possible, given the technology available at
the time of ALUP adoption and the resources available to the ALUC.
Response 73: Section 5 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated. This fact is acknowledged here by the ALUC. When information and technology
change it is the very reason why plans need to be periodically updated and changed to reflect this
new information. These problems with the ALUP are exactly why the City approached the
ALUC in the first place to ensure that the ALUP reflected the Master Plan and the resulting
physical changes to the airport runways that have been constructed in recent years.
(b) During the past eighteen (18) months, the ALUC has provided the City with
extremely precise, GIS- compatible descriptions of the safety zones at SBP incorporating
all current and future anticipated changes in runway lengths, positions, and alignments.
Response 74: Unfortunately those extremely precise, GIS - compatible descriptions are no more
reflective of the actual safety risk than their less precise predecessors.
(c) As above, the criticisms leveled at the current ALUP in Finding 5 do not speak to
the purposes of the SAA nor do they demonstrate that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance
Updates will be as effective as the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to
airport noise and safety hazards. Finding 5, therefore, is not relevant to the proposed
overrule of the ALUC's determination of inconsistency.
Response 75: Section 5 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City's Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 65
Exhibit B
(d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 5 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 76: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
vi. Finding 6
50. Finding 6 provides as follows:
State law requires that ALUPs be consistent with the Airport Master Plan (AMP), the
Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and the FAA - approved Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). The
existing ALUP is not consistent with the AMP, the ALP or the TAF.
51. Analysis of Finding 6:
(a) Finding 6 misstates the actual requirements of state law. The relevant statutory
provisions are PUC Sections 21647.7(a) and 21675(a) which provide as follows,
respectively:
(i) An airport land use commission that formulates, adopts, or amends an
airport land use compatibility plan shall be guided by information prepared and
updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook (emphasis added).
(ii) Each commission shall formulate an airport land use compatibility plan
that will provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area
surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will
safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport
and the public in general. The commission's airport land use compatibility plan
shall include and shall be based on a long -range master plan or an airport layout
plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of
Transportation that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the
next 20 years (emphasis added).
Thus, under state law, an airport land use plan must "be guided by" the principles and
provisions put forth in the Handbook and must be based upon "the anticipated growth of
the airport over at least the next 20 years," as predicted by the approved Airport Master
Plan. State law, however, does not require that an airport land use plan be consistent with
the "FAA- approved Terminal Area Forecast (TAP)." On the contrary, in cases where the
TAP is at variance with the activity forecasts of the approved Airport Master Plan, state
law mandates that ALUCs utilize the Airport Master Plan forecast for land use planning
purposes.
Response 77: The ALUC ignores the foundation of the FAA's requirements for approving
master plan forecasts while affirming the State's requirement that ALUPs be based on an
approved master plan. Section 21675 requires the following: "The commission's airport land
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 66 Exhibit B
use compatibility plan shall include and shall be based on a long -range master plan or an airport
layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation
that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years." The approval
of an airport master plan can only occur after compliance with the CEQA, which includes
preparation and adoption of a negative declaration (ND) or mitigated negative declaration
(MND) and/or preparation and certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the
Airport Master Plan. CEQA statutes and guidelines state that an EIR shall be considered by
every public agency prior to its approval or disapproval of a project. "Project" shall include the
carrying out or approval of a plan that expands or enlarges an existing publicly owned airport.
The Airport Master Plan Update for San Luis Obispo Airport was completed in 2003, revised in
2004, and accepted by the Board of Supervisors of the County in 2005. In 2006 the County
completed and certified an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for extension of the main Runway 11/29 and other suggested Airport improvements. As
per the EIR, "In accordance with FAA policy, the FAA will use this EA for ALP approval and
future federal funding approvals over the next five -year period ... in accordance with CEQA, San
Luis Obispo County is required to be concerned with the `whole of the action,' which is defined
as all projects identified in the Master Plan program. Therefore, for purposes of this EA /EIR, the
County's obligation under CEQA is to include both phases of the Master Plan."
As part of the EIR, a comprehensive analysis of noise, using the forecasts prepared for the airport
master plan, was completed. This noise analysis was validated in the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report also using the forecasts prepared for the Airport Master Plan. Although it is
stated in the ALUP that data was constructed from information and projections presented in the
Airport Maser Plan, the noise contours source presented in the ALUP are cited as a noise study
completed by Brown - Buntin Associates in April, 2001. A public records act request to both the
County and a direct request to Brown - Buntin failed to locate this study which was used by the
ALUC to set noise contours based upon a hypothetical maximum use of airport runways. As
seen in Figure 6, the noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared for
the Airport Master Plan. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable
residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from the cited study
from Brown - Buntin Associates instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The Land Use
Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure using the
noise contours from the study from Brown - Buntin Associates instead of the Airport Master Plan
EIR. The Margarita Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the
ALUP, are also based on the noise contours from the study from Brown - Buntin Associates
instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 67
Exhibit B
(b) As discussed in Paragraph 45 supra, Caltrans has performed a special review of
the ALUP. In contrast to the unsupported assertions contained in Finding 6, Caltrans has
determined that the current ALUP is fully compliant with all requirements and provisions
of state law.
Response 78: The Division is not required to determine whether or not an ALUP meets the
requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. Rather, Caltrans is only required to provide approval
for the ALUC to use an ALP (instead of a master plan) for purposes of compatibility planning.
City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 210 Cal.App.3d 1277.
The Division does not have approval authority over an ALUP.
(c) As above, the criticisms leveled at the current ALUP in Finding 6 do not speak to
the purposes of the SAA nor do they demonstrate that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance
Updates will be as effective as the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to
airport noise and safety hazards. Finding 6, therefore, is not relevant to the proposed
overrule of the ALUC's determination of inconsistency.
Response 79: Section 6 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 68 Exhibit B
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City's Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(d) Finding 6 is conclusory and fails to provide substantial evidence to support the
contention that "the existing ALUP is not consistent with the AMP, the ALP or the TAF."
Response 80: Section 6 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City's Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 6 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 81: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
vii. Finding 7
52. Finding 7 provides as follows:
ALUCs are not empowered to determine what the future airfield configuration, airport
role, or activity levels will be. State statutes direct that an ALUCP must be based upon an
Airport Master Plan and FAA - approved Terminal Area Forecast.
53. Analysis of Finding 7:
(a) The ALUP contains no provisions that would regulate airfield configuration,
"airport role," or future airport activity levels.
Response 82: The ALUC's land use policies and application of those policies through project
referrals are not based on the County- adopted Master Plan, its forecast or its associated EIR. As
a result the ALUC is placing undue restrictions on land use in the vicinity of the airport as a
result of its knowingly flawed ALUP.
(b) Finding 7 is conclusory and provides no factual basis to support the contention
that the ALUC has, in any way, attempted to regulate airfield configuration, "airport
role," or future airport activity levels.
Response 83: Section 7 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City's Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(c) As discussed in Paragraph 51 supra, the statement that "an ALUCP must be based
upon [...] the FAA - approved Terminal Area Forecast" is false and misleading.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 69 Exhibit B
Response 84: While there is no requirement for the ALUP to use forecast numbers from the
TAF, the ALUP must be based on the AMP. ALUC continues to ignore the FAA's requirements
for approving master plan forecasts. The AMP was completed in 2003, revised in 2004, and
accepted by the Board of Supervisors of the County in 2005. In the 10 years since this planning
was completed, much has changed in the aviation industry and the local aviation activity at SBP.
As a result, the forecasts of aviation activity reflected in the Airport Master Plan Update require
significant updates to better reflect the existing conditions at SBP, and to better align with the
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) official Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for the
facility. However, for the purposes of this LUCE Update, the City is relying on the SBP Master
Plan forecasts of aviation activity as a reasonably foreseeable projection of ultimate aviation
activity sufficient for long -term land use planning purposes, without regard for the date of 2023
because it is uncertain when the forecast levels of activity will be reached and because growth
must be consistent with the capital improvement plan for the Airport.
(d) As above, the criticisms leveled at the current ALUP in Finding 7 do not speak to
the purposes of the SAA nor do they demonstrate that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance
Updates will be as effective as the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to
airport noise and safety hazards. Finding 7, therefore, is not relevant to the proposed
overrule of the ALUC's determination of inconsistency.
Response 85: Section 7 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City's Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 7 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 86: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
viii. Finding 8
54. Finding 8 provides as follows:
While planners are not mandated to use the sample zones provided in the Handbook, they
are mandated to create zones that have easily definable geometric shapes, are as compact
as possible, have a distinct progression in the degree of risk represented, and are limited
to a realistic number (five or six should be adequate in most cases). The ALUP's safety
zones require complex trigonometry to define, show an increasing geographic area of risk
at further distances from the airport, and contain zones that are not described by the
Handbook and that are not reflective of Handbook Table 3A adjustment factors.
55. Analysis of Finding 8:
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 70
Exhibit B
(a) Finding 8 misstates the actual requirements of state law. The SAA makes no
reference to the creation of "zones;" and the Handbook operates merely as a guidance
document for ALUCs (see PUC Section 21674.7).
Response 87: Public Utilities Code Section 21674.7(a) states, "An airport land use commission
that formulates, adopts or amends an airport land use compatibility 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. (emphasis added)."
(b) With the exception of the outer border of the Airport Planning Area (Safety Area
S -2), the Aviation Safety Zones defined by the current ALUP consist of three (3) easily -
definable geometric shapes - rectangles, triangles, and segments of circles. The irregular
outer border of Safety Area S -2 represents a vestige of the ALUP adopted in 1977. The
ALUP is in the process of formulating an amendment to the ALUP that will modify the
outer border of Safety Area S -2 to an oval shape.
Response 88: The ALUC continues to miss the essence of the problem with its safety zones. It
is not only the size and shape of the zones but most importantly the connection between those
zones and actual safety risk and associated land use policies that provide meaningful protection
to people and property in line with the risk.
(c) As suggested by the Handbook, the number of safety zones defined by the ALUP
is "limited to a realistic number" -in this case, five (5).
Response 89: The ALUP actually defines eight safety zones.
(d) While the Handbook does suggest that airport safety zones be "as compact as
possible," this does not imply that safety zones should become smaller in geographic area
at further distances from the airport. The fallacy of this argument is illustrated by simple
consideration of the generic "sample" safety zones included in the Handbook itself. In
this example, the Inner Turning Zone becomes progressively larger at greater distances
from the airport. In addition, the Handbook's geographically largest generic zone is the
"Traffic Pattern" zone, which is also the most distant from the airport.
Response 90: Requirements and criteria of each safety zone is identified and fully explained in
the Handbook. Safety zones are made up of their geographic area and proximity to the runway
along with the corresponding land use restrictions that connect to the actual safety risk to people
and property on the ground. The Handbook traffic pattern zone does incorporate a very large
geographic area but its land use restrictions are limited to buyer awareness of aircraft overflight
and proximity to the airport with no limitations on the type, density or intensity of land use in
urban areas like the City. The Handbook Inner Turning Zone is specifically aligned and shaped
to contain potential accidents close to the airport (less than one mile from the runway end) where
aircraft are in descending and climbing turns, to and from the runway. The remaining inner
approach/departure zone, outer approach departure zone and sideline zones are all grouped
narrowly along the runway centerline and runway centerline extended into the
approach/departure area.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 71
Exhibit B
(e) The Handbook provides that ALUCs should not simply adopt the sample generic
safety zones contained therein for use at a specific airport. Rather, ALUCs should adjust
the shape and dimensions of airport safety zones based upon the operational
characteristics of an individual airport. Some of the factors to be considered are listed in
Table 3A of the Handbook. Over the past two (2) years, the ALUC has had extensive
discussions with Caltrans on the manner in which generic safety zones have, in the
current ALUP, been adjusted in response to local factors. These discussions have
confirmed the following:
(i) The local adjustment factors to be considered for a specific airport include,
but are not limited to, those listed in Table 3A and
(ii) The manner in which the current ALUP has adapted the generic safety
zones to operational factors specific to SBP is both rational and appropriate and
consistent with state law and the Handbook.
Response 91: The Division is not required to determine whether or not an ALUP meets the
requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. Rather, Caltrans is only required to provide approval
for the ALUC to use an ALP (instead of a master plan) for purposes of compatibility planning.
City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 210 Cal.App.3d 1277.
The Division does not have approval authority over an ALUP.
(f) The statement that "the ALUP's safety zones require complex trigonometry to
define" is untrue. The ALUC has provided the City with precise measurements and
reference points for all airport safety zones (with the exception of Safety Area S -2) that
allow for extremely accurate, GIS- compatible location of zone boundaries with no
calculations. The trigonometric calculations referred to in this Finding were provided to
the City merely as an aid to help the City understand how the size and shape of the Safety
Zones relate to the operational characteristics of the airport environment.
Response 92: The zones increase in size, rather than decrease in size, despite decreased risk
from the aircraft operations with further distance from the airport. ALUP Maneuvering Zone S-
lb, due to the fact that its size, configuration and land use criteria are inconsistent with California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria, has no such equivalent zone in the
Handbook. This zone is also unsubstantiated by the airport's activity forecasts as used for noise
planning purposes, historical accident data at SBP, or safety zone adjustment factors as described
in Table 3A of the Handbook. ALUP Sideline Zone S -lc, due to the fact that its size,
configuration and land use criteria are more restrictive than California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria, has no such equivalent zone in the Handbook. This
zone is also unsubstantiated by the airport's activity forecasts as used for noise planning
purposes, historical accident data at SBP, or safety zone adjustment factors as described in Table
3A of the Handbook. ALUP Zone S -2 is not consistent with Zone 6 — Traffic Pattern of the
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria. Safety Area S -2 is
really just the ALUP's Airport Land Use Planning Area. The ALUP states, "the dimensions of
this area were defined in 1977 and have not changed. In general terms, the Planning Area is an
irregular oval, which is aligned with its long axis in a northwest southeast direction, parallel to
the centerline of Runway 11 -29 at the Airport. The dimensions of the oval are approximately
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 72 Exhibit B
31,600 feet by 20,850 feet. The Planning Area extends from a point approximately '/z mile
southeast of the community of Edna on the southeast to West Oceanaire Drive in the Laguna
Lake Subdivision on the northwest. To the north of the Airport, the Planning Area extends to
Sinsheimer School and Edgewood Drive in the City of San Luis Obispo. To the southeast and
east, the boundary of the Planning Area is close to the ridgeline of the high terrain." Safety Area
S -2 is the outermost safety zone and should be the equivalent of Zone 6 in the Handbook. The
size, configuration and land use criteria of Safety Area S -2 should be consistent with Zone 6, and
not based on a Planning Area established by the ALUC in 1977. Caltrans has provided no
further clarity or factual technical detail as to the basis of its support for the ALUP safety zones,
regardless, at this time the City is choosing to accept the defined safety zones from the ALUP
and will work with the ALUC during its ongoing ALUP update.
(g) The criticisms leveled at the current ALUP in Finding 8 do not speak to the
purposes of the SAA nor do they demonstrate that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance
Updates will be as effective as the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to
airport noise and safety hazards. Finding 8, therefore, is not relevant to the proposed
overrule of the ALUC's determination of inconsistency.
Response 93: Section 8 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City's Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(h) Based on the foregoing, Finding 8 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 94: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
ix. Finding 9
56. Finding 9 provides as follows:
Since January 2012, the City of San Luis Obispo has encouraged the ALUC to update the
ALUP for consistency with the SAA, PUC and Handbook in an open and collaborative
manner based on factual information and realistic airport operations scenarios. Such an
update has not occurred.
57. Analysis of Finding 9:
(a) As discussed in Paragraph 7 supra, despite severe budgetary constraints, the
ALUC has been working for almost two (2) years to prepare and adopt an amendment to
the current ALUP. However, because the ALUC and ALUC staff have had to expend a
great deal of time and resources responding to assertions made by the City in the Johnson
Report and related correspondence and because the City changed its position regarding
funding for the noise contours to be included within the ALUP update, the ALUC has not
been able to complete the amendment.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 73 Exhibit B
Response 95: The City requested the development of the Airport Compatibility Report after the
ALUC was unresponsive to the City's request that the ALUC fully incorporate the Master Plan
and associated EIR findings into its update of the ALUP as required by state law. The Master
Plan was completed in 2005, the associated EIR was certified in 2006 and the extension of
Runway 11/29 was opened in 2007. While the City has made pointed requests over the last two
years that the ALUC update their ALUP to include the Master Plan, it is now nine years beyond
completion of the Master Plan, eight years beyond the completion of the EIR and seven years
beyond the extension of Runway 11/29.
(b) Other than with respect to the prematurity of the City's referral, the issue of the
pending ALUP amendment is irrelevant to the ALUC's determination that the LUCE and
Zoning Ordinance Updates are inconsistent with the ALUP. The LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance Updates have been determined to be inconsistent with the current ALUP, a
document that has been reviewed by Caltrans and has been found to be fully compliant
with the SAA and the Handbook.
Response 96: Section 9 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City's Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(c) The criticisms leveled at the current ALUP in Finding 9 do not speak to the
purposes of the SAA nor do they demonstrate that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance
Updates will be as effective as the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to
airport noise and safety hazards. Finding 9, therefore, is not relevant to the proposed
overrule of the ALUC's determination of inconsistency.
Response 97: Section 9 of the Draft Findings is a statement of fact that the ALUP is flawed and
outdated in as much as it does not incorporate the Master Plan and its associated EIR. This fact
is acknowledged in both the ALUC and Caltrans letters providing comments to the City's Draft
Findings in its Intent to Overrule.
(d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 9 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 98: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
X. Finding 10
58. Finding 10 provides as follows:
The policies and programs set forth in the proposed LUCE Update and implementing
Airport Overlay Zone are based upon the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook and are consistent with the guidelines recommended by Caltrans to
specifically fulfill the purposes of Article 3.5 of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in
Section 21670.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 74
59. Analysis of Finding 10:
Exhibit B
(a) As discussed in Paragraph 41 supra and more specifically set forth in Exhibit D,
the policies and programs contained within the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are
not consistent with the Handbook. The provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance
Update relating to airport compatibility are based on the Johnson Report which contains a
number of uncorrected deficiencies.
Response 99: The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update are consistent with Federal, State, and
local laws and guidance material. This includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -6B, Airport Master Plans,
FAA AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77,
Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for
Airports (1983), FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects
around Airports (1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5
of the California Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 "provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state
and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the
California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation
of new noise and safety problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the
orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent
that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the
airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated technical information on
the progress of airport development and operations since the completion of the most recent San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the current ALUP does
not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical information system (GIS)
mapping of the Airport's safety zones, noise impact areas and overflight areas, which the current
ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours provided in the ALUP are cited as being based
on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001 (which cannot be located), not on the 2006 EA/EIR
completed for the Airport Master Plan Update.
(b) As discussed in Paragraphs 23 -25 supra, even if the proposed City policies and
programs were in conformance with the Handbook, this would be insufficient to confirm
that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the purposes of the
SAA.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 75 Exhibit B
Response 100: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670 - 21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
(c) As discussed in Paragraphs 29 and 32 supra, in comparison with the current
ALUP, the land use provisions of LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update would actually
increase the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas in the
vicinity of SBP.
Response 101: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well -
established federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65
dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should
also be noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in
decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations
where this use would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City
has conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and
requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced
to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any
new residential development to CNEL 60dB CNEL, consistent with limitations in all other areas
of the City.
The noise contours presented in the ALUP are cited as those from a noise study completed by
Brown - Buntin Associates in April, 2001, not the noise analysis that was completed for the
Airport Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA /EIR.
As seen in Figure 6, the noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared
for the Airport Master Plan Update. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum
acceptable residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from the
Brown - Buntin study (a study that cannot be located), instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR.
The Land Use Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure
using the noise contours from this Brown - Buntin study instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR.
The Margarita Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are
also based on the noise contours from the un- locatable Brown - Bunting study instead of the
Airport Master Plan EIR.
This is not consistent with State Statues that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 76
Exhibit B
(d) Finding 10 contains no factual evidence to support the contention that the LUCE
and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the Handbook.
Response 102: The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update are consistent with Federal, State, and
local laws and guidance material. This includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -613, Airport Master Plans,
FAA AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77,
Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for
Airports (1983), FAA AC 150- 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects
around Airports (1987), FAA Order 8260.313 (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5
of the California Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA /EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 "provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state
and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the
California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 77 Exhibit B
of new noise and safety problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the
orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent
that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the
airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated technical information on
the progress of airport development and operations since the completion of the most recent San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the current ALUP does
not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical information system (GIS)
mapping of the Airport's safety zones, noise impact areas and overflight areas, which the current
ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours provided in the ALUP are cited as being based
on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001 (which cannot be located), not on the 2006 EA /EIR
completed for the Airport Master Plan Update.
(e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 10 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Section 103: The City has provided much evidence that its findings and proposed action is
consistent with Section 21670 by ensuring that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material was followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -613, Airport Master Plans, FAA AC
150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.313 (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA /EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 "provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state
and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the
California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation
of new noise and safety problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the
orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent
that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
Section 21676(b) states: "Prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the
adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary
established by the airport land use commission pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall
first refer the proposed action to the commission. If the commission determines that the proposed
action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 78 Exhibit B
local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the commission by a two - thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with
the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to
overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the
division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may
provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed
decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this
time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the
division or the commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency
governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the public
record of any final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by a
two - thirds vote of the governing body."
The City has followed all the requirements of PUC Section 21676 (b) regarding referral of
proposed actions to the land use commission, and the right to overrule the land use commission
if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article
stated in Section 21670.
The Council adopted preliminary findings on August 19, 2014 and those findings were
transmitted (and received) by the ALUC on August 20, 2014 and by Caltrans on August 22,
2014. Responses were received from Caltrans on September 22, 2014 and by the ALUC on
September 19, 2014. The Council did not consider action until October 21, 2014 — 60 days after
transmittal of the findings. Final action is anticipated to occur on December 2, 2014 at the
earliest, therefore, the City is consistent with PUC Section 21676(b).
xii. Finding 11
60. Finding 11 provides as follows:
The City went through an extensive effort to ensure that the City's LUCE policies: (1) are
consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, as stated in Section 21670; (2)
are consistent with the Caltrans Handbook's policies and recommendations relating to
safety, overflight, airspace protectiond noise; and (3) that the LUCE policies do not
adversely impact the public health, welfare and safety or airport operations. All of the
policies in the LUCE are based on substantial evidence provided in the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report included as a technical appendix to the LUCE Update EIR and
incorporated by reference. This report includes a careful examination of the existing and
proposed airport facilities, operations, and local procedures, weather, topography, aircraft
accidents and incidents. The report also includes a careful examination of the County
approved Airport Master Plan, FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan and application of
Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 obstruction analysis. The report also includes
recommendations for LUCE policies consistent with the purposes of the State
Aeronautics Act and guidelines provided in the Caltrans Handbook. Therefore, the LUCE
policies and programs and associated implementation through creation of an Airport
Overlay Zone is based on substantial evidence and is consistent with the purposes of
Article 3.5 of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670, to minimize the
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 79
Exhibit B
public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards and do not impact public health,
welfare and safety or existing and future airport operations.
61. Analysis of Finding 11:
(a) Finding 11 is, in large part, merely an extended restatement of Finding 10 and
suffers the same defects:
(i) As discussed in Paragraph 41 supra and more specifically set forth in
Exhibit D, the policies and programs contained within the LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance Updates are not consistent with the Handbook.
Response 104: The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update are consistent with Federal, State, and
local laws and guidance material. This includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -6B, Airport Master Plans,
FAA AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77,
Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for
Airports (1983), FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects
around Airports (1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5
of the California Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 "provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state
and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the
California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation
of new noise and safety problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the
orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent
that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the
airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated technical information on
the progress of airport development and operations since the completion of the most recent San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the current ALUP does
not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical information system (GIS)
mapping of the Airport's safety zones, noise impact areas and overflight areas, which the current
ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours provided in the ALUP are cited as being based
on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001 (which cannot be located), not on the 2006 EA /EIR
completed for the Airport Master Plan Update.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 80
Exhibit B
(ii) In comparison with the current ALUP, the land use provisions of LUCE
and Zoning Ordinance Updates would actually increase the public's exposure to
excessive noise and safety hazards within areas in the vicinity of the SBP.
Response 105: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well -
established federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65
dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should
also be noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in
decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations
where this use would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City
has conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and
requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced
to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any
new residential development to CNEL 60dB CNEL, consistent with existing limitations that
apply throughout the rest of the City..
The noise contours presented in the ALUP are cited as those from a noise study completed by
Brown - Buntin Associates in April, 2001, not the noise analysis that was completed for the
Airport Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA/EIR.
The noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared for the Airport
Master Plan Update. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable
residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from the Brown -
Buntin study (a study that cannot be located), instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The Land
Use Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure using the
noise contours from this Brown - Buntin study instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The
Margarita Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are also
based on the noise contours from the un- locatable Brown - Bunting study instead of the Airport
Master Plan EIR.
This is not consistent with State Statues that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan.
(b) As discussed in Paragraph 26 supra, the reference in Finding 11 and in numerous
other Findings to consistency with the Handbook provides substantial additional evidence
of the City's intent to author its own airport land use compatibility plan in contravention
of the SAA. As discussed in Paragraphs 25 supra, the Handbook is a reference document
for ALUCs that has no applicability to the formulation or adoption of a legitimate general
plan unless the provisions of the Handbook have been included in the ALUP adopted by
the ALUC.
Response 106: The City has not authored its own airport land use compatibility plan for SBP.
Rather, it is proceeding with an overrule in those areas that are inconsistent with the ALUP
policies as required by law. The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to
establish the basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General
Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated
technical information on the progress of airport development and operations since the completion
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 81 Exhibit B
of the most recent San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which
the current ALUP does not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical
information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport's safety zones, noise impact areas and
overflight areas, which the current ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours provided in
the ALUP are based on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001, not on the 2006 EA /EIR
completed for the Airport Master Plan Update.
The Airport Land Use Planning Handbook is not only intended for ALUCs and to guide Cities
only to the extent that the provisions of the Handbook have been incorporated into the ALUP by
the ALUC. The Handbook states that it is intended to "1) provide information to ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants, and the public, 2) to identify the requirements and
procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents, and 3) define exemptions
where applicable.
(c) As discussed in Paragraph 12 supra, the City has been notified by Caltrans that
the City is not authorized to formulate or adopt an airport land use compatibility plan, and
that such authority has been reserved, by state law, to airport land use commissions.
Response 107: The City is not adopting an ALUP. Rather, the City is exercising its statutory
and constitutional land use authority to override certain policies in the ALUP and approve a
LUCE Update and zoning ordinance that in not consistent with the ALUP.
(d) As discussed in Paragraph 27 supra, the City has not demonstrated that the
membership of its City Council includes two (2) members with aeronautical expertise or
that the airport provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates have been
approved by Caltrans, requirements placed on "designated body" counties and
"designated agency" counties, respectively.
Response 108: It appears that this comment is referencing Section 21670.1(a) of the Public
Utilities Code which allows a designated body to assume the planning responsibilities of the
ALUC if the board of supervisors and the mayors' committee in a county each determine that
another body can accomplish essential airport land use compatibility planning. Although the
designated body format is quite common among ALUCS, this is not the situation here. The
County has a single purpose entity that is the ALUC which the City acknowledges and has
accepted as the County ALUC. Again, the City's approval of the LUCE Update and zoning
ordinances is not based on the prior designation of a new body to serve as the ALUC. Rather,
the City is following the defined overrule process required by state statute based on the ALUC's
inconsistency determination.
(e) Assertions that "the City's LUCE policies: (1) are consistent with the purposes of
the State Aeronautics Act, as stated in Section 21670: (2) are consistent with the Caltrans
Handbook's policies and recommendations relating to safety, overflight, airspace
protection and noise; and (3) that the LUCE policies do not adversely impact the public
health, welfare and safety or airport operations" are conclusory and are not supported by
factual evidence.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 82 Exhibit B
Response 109: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA -
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA /EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 "provide
for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these
airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards
adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety
problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of
airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive
noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not
already devoted to incompatible uses."
(f) As discussed in Paragraphs 23 -25 supra, even if the proposed City policies and
programs were in conformance with the Handbook, this would be insufficient to confirm
that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the purposes of the
SAA.
Response 110: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670 - 21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
(g) The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates, rather than serving to minimize the
public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards, would actually increase the
allowable extent of exposure to a level greater than is currently the case under the
provisions of the ALUP.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 83 Exhibit B
Response 111: The key words in this component of the law's purpose are minimize and
excessive. In order to adopt a findings demonstrating consistency with this purpose of Section
21670, the City first determined whether the existing noise exposure or safety hazards are
excessive. Where existing noise and safety hazards are not excessive, then the actions taken by
the local agency "prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems." Where the existing
exposure is excessive, the City has shown how its action in overruling an ALUC determination
of inconsistency nonetheless minimizes additional exposure to those noise and safety concerns
that have been identified. Finally, the City has shown the extent to which land uses in the area
are already incompatible with airport operations, and how an action to overrule would not create
a new incompatible use, or would not expose additional persons or property to noise and safety
hazards associated with existing compatible uses.
(h) Based on the foregoing, Finding 11 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 112: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule.
x i i . Finding 12
62. Finding 12 provides as follows:
The draft LUCE Update and implementing Airport Overlay Zoning regulations
incorporate and are fully consistent with the current Caltrans Handbook standards for
addressing safety, noise, overflight and airspace protection and also include accurate
Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping, current FAA operations and planning
standards and significant airport planning information from the County- adopted Airport
Master Plan and FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan.
The City has also developed complete technical airport operational information through
its Airport Land Use Compatibility Report fully considering FAA- regulated and
approved operations and procedures. San Luis Obispo Regional Airport supports all -
weather General Aviation operations and scheduled commercial passenger service with
no deviations due to topography or weather that limit these operations or require
adjustments to Caltrans Handbook safety zones. The City applied the Caltrans Handbook
density and intensity of use standards to each proposed Airport Overlay Zone to ensure
safety and compatibility of existing and proposed land uses and to prevent future
development of incompatible land uses.
63. Analysis of Finding 12:
(a) Finding 12 has the same deficiencies as Findings 10 and 11 noted above,
specifically:
(i) As discussed in Paragraph 41 supra and more specifically set forth in
Exhibit D, the policies and programs set forth in the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance
Updates are not consistent with the Handbook. The provisions of the LUCE and
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 84
Exhibit B
Zoning Ordinance Updates relating to airport compatibility are based on the
Johnson Report which contains a number of uncorrected deficiencies.
Response 113: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -613, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.313 (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA -
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA /EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 "provide
for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these
airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards
adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety
problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of
airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive
noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not
already devoted to incompatible uses."
(ii) In comparison with the current ALUP, the land use provisions of the
LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would actually increase the public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas in the vicinity of the
SBP.
Response 114: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well -
established federal and state laws and regulations as well as responsive to noise and safety
hazards associated with the current and future operation of aviation activities of SBP. The basic
state criterion sets a CNEL of 65 dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with
urban residential land uses. It should also be noted that on occasion, local considerations
outweigh noise impacts and result in decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow
residential development in locations where this use would normally be considered incompatible.
It should also be noted that the City has conditioned residential development upon dedication of
an avigation easement and requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure
that aircraft noise is reduced to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted
that the City is limiting any new residential development to CNEL 60dB.
The noise contours presented in the ALUP are cited as those from a noise study completed by
Brown - Buntin Associates in April, 2001, not the noise analysis that was completed for the
Airport Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA/EIR.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 85 Exhibit B
The noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared for the Airport
Master Plan Update. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable
residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from the Brown -
Buntin study (a study that cannot be located), instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The Land
Use Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure using the
noise contours from this Brown - Buntin study instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The
Margarita Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are also
based on the noise contours from the un- locatable Brown - Bunting study instead of the Airport
Master Plan EIR.
This is not consistent with State Statues that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan.
(iii) As discussed in Paragraph 1 1 supra, the Airport Area Chapter (Chapter 7)
of the LUCE Update and the Airport Overlay Zone Chapter (Chapter 17.57) of the
Zoning Ordinance Update constitute a defacto airport land use compatibility plan
in contravention of the SAA.
Response 115: Although approval of the LUCE through the overrule process will result in the
LUCE and zoning ordinance taking effect just as if the ALUC had approved it or found it
consistent with the ALUP, the City must still comply with the mandatory review procedures of
the ALUC with respect to general plans and specific plans and ordinances /regulations. The
LUCE makes these review procedures clear.
The City has not authored its own airport land use compatibility plan for SBP. Rather, it is
proceeding with an overrule in those areas that are inconsistent with the ALUP policies as
required by law. The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated technical
information on the progress of airport development and operations since the completion of the
most recent San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the
current ALUP does not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical
information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport's safety zones, noise impact areas and
overflight areas, which the current ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours provided in
the ALUP are based on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001, not on the 2006 EA/EIR
completed for the Airport Master Plan Update.
(iv) As discussed in Paragraph 27 supra, the City has not demonstrated that the
membership of its City Council includes two (2) members with aeronautical
expertise or that the airport provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance
Updates have been approved by Caltrans, requirements placed on "designated
body" counties and "designated agency" counties, respectively.
Response 116: It appears that this comment is referencing Section 21670.1(a) of the Public
Utilities Code which allows a designated body to assume the planning responsibilities of the
ALUC if the board of supervisors and the mayors' committee in a county each determine that
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 86 Exhibit B
another body can accomplish essential airport land use compatibility planning. Although the
designated body format is quite common among ALUCS, this is not the situation here. The
County has a single purpose entity that is the ALUC which the City acknowledges and has
accepted as the County ALUC. Again, the City's approval of the LUCE Update and zoning
ordinances is not based on the prior designation of a new body to serve as the ALUC. Rather,
the City is following the defined overrule process required by state statute based on the ALUC's
inconsistency determination.
(b) The adoption of the generic safety zones set forth in the Handbook for land use
compatibility planning in the vicinity of SBP is inappropriate and inconsistent with the
Handbook. Significant local factors that must be incorporated into the determination of
the optimal size and configuration of airport safety zones include, at a minimum:
(i) Instrument procedures (approaches and departures) not aligned with
runways
• VOR -A approach
• WYNRR departure
• AVILA departure
• Circle -to -land procedures
(ii) High terrain in the vicinity of the airport
non - standard glideslope for Runway 29
Islay Hill
Terrace Hill
(iii) Noise - sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the airport
adopted "Quiet Flight" procedures for SBP
Los Ranchos School
(iv) Runway use by special purpose aircraft
helicopter operations and helicopter training procedures
student pilots
Response 117: An assessment of whether any of the safety zone adjustment factors described in
Table 3A of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook apply to SBP was provided in
Section 4.3 of the Johnson Aviation Airport Land Use Compatibility Report. The purpose of the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the basis for the airport-area policies
chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
Update. The findings from the Report indicate no safety zone adjustments from those suggested
by the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook are required. Simply because a type of
procedure exists or is in use, or that terrain exists in the vicinity, or a runway is occasionally used
by special purpose aircraft, does not by itself change the risk profile or safety setting of the
operation for the surrounding community.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 87
Exhibit B
(c) The assertion that "[t]he draft LUCE Update and implementing Airport Overlay
Zoning regulations incorporate and are fully consistent with the current Caltrans
Handbook standards for addressing safety, noise, overflight and airspace protection" is
conclusory and not supported by fact.
Response 118: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.313 (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA -
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 "provide
for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these
airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards
adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety
problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of
airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive
noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not
already devoted to incompatible uses."
(d) In comparison with the current ALUP, the land use provisions of LUCE and
Zoning Ordinance Update would actually increase the public's exposure to excessive
noise and safety hazards within areas in the vicinity of the SBP.
Response 119: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well -
established federal and state laws and regulations as well as responsive to noise and safety
hazards associated with the current and future operation of aviation activities of SBP. The basic
state criterion sets a CNEL of 65 dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with
urban residential land uses. It should also be noted that on occasion, local considerations
outweigh noise impacts and result in decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow
residential development in locations where this use would normally be considered incompatible.
It should also be noted that the City has conditioned residential development upon dedication of
an avigation easement and requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure
that aircraft noise is reduced to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted
that the City is limiting any new residential development to CNEL 60dB.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 88 Exhibit B
The noise contours presented in the ALUP are cited as those from a noise study completed by
Brown - Buntin Associates in April, 2001, not the noise analysis that was completed for the
Airport Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA /EIR.
The noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared for the Airport
Master Plan Update. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable
residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from the Brown -
Buntin study (a study that cannot be located), instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The Land
Use Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure using the
noise contours from this Brown - Buntin study instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The
Margarita Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are also
based on the noise contours from the un- locatable Brown - Bunting study instead of the Airport
Master Plan EIR.
This is not consistent with State Statues that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan.
(e) As discussed in Paragraphs 23 -25 supra, even if the proposed City policies and
programs were in conformance with the Handbook, this would be insufficient to confirm
that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the purposes of the
SAA.
(f) As discussed in Paragraphs 23 -25 supra, even if the proposed City policies and
programs were in conformance with the Handbook, this would be insufficient to confirm
that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the purposes of the
SAA.
Response 120: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670 - 21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
(f) Based on the foregoing, Finding 12 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 121: The City has provided much evidence that its findings and proposed action is
consistent with Section 21670 by ensuring that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material was followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA AC
150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 89 Exhibit B
Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.313 (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA /EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 "provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state
and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the
California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation
of new noise and safety problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the
orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent
that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
Section 21676(b) states: "Prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the
adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary
established by the airport land use commission pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall
first refer the proposed action to the commission. If the commission determines that the proposed
action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The
local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the commission by a two - thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with
the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to
overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the
division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may
provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed
decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this
time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the
division or the commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency
governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the public
record of any final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by a
two - thirds vote of the governing body."
The City has followed all the requirements of PUC Section 21676 (b) regarding referral of
proposed actions to the land use commission, and the right to overrule the land use commission
if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article
stated in Section 21670.
The Council adopted preliminary findings on August 19, 2014 and those findings were
transmitted (and received) by the ALUC on August 20, 2014 and by Caltrans on August 22,
2014. Responses were received from Caltrans on September 22, 2014 and by the ALUC on
September 19, 2014. The Council will not consider final action until October 21, 2014 — 60 days
after transmittal of the findings. Therefore, the City is consistent with PUC Section 21676(b).
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 90
xiii. Finding 13
64. Finding 13 provides as follows:
Exhibit B
Airport Safety policies and programs contained in the LUCE Update are consistent with
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines (See Handbook, Chapter 3,
Page 3 -15 through 3 -27; Chapter 4, Pages 4 -17 through 4 -34) and substantiated by the
FAA - approved San Luis Obispo County Airport Master Plan activity forecasts because
policies and programs address development standards to regulate development intensity,
density, and prohibited uses; infill development standards, height limitations and other
hazards to flight; noise, buyer awareness measures, avigation easements; airspace
obstruction; open land; non - conforming uses and reconstruction; and City review. These
policies and programs meet the guidance and direction provided in sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4,
4.5, and 4.6 of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines.
The FAA - approved Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity is the best
reasonably foreseeable projection of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for long- term
safety planning purposes (See Handbook, Pages 3 -7 through 3 -8). Public Utility Code
§21675(a) requires land use compatibility plans to be based on the Airport Master Plan
for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport.
65. Analysis of Finding 13:
(a) The policies and programs of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are not
based upon the aviation activity forecast incorporated into the San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport Master Plan, but upon a modified forecast developed solely by Johnson
Aviation.
Response 122: The Airport Land Use Compatibility Report clearly states "...the SBP EA/EIR
(2006) noise analysis used the SBP Master Plan Update forecasts, and these forecasts were also
used to validate that noise analysis, the results of which are summarized in Chapter 6, Airport
Noise. Even though the SBP Master Plan Update forecast is based on aggressive growth at SBP,
and trends that are not in line with existing activity and the FAA forecast, it substantiates the
ultimate development of the Airport, which is shown on the FAA - approved ALP. Table 5 -2
summarizes historical and existing activity at SBP, as well as the FAA TAF and Master Plan
Update forecasts prepared for the Airport." Further evidence that the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report used the Master Plan Update forecasts can be found in Chapter 6 of the
Report where the 2006 EA/EIR noise analysis is validated, "...to prepare the CNEL contours,
aircraft operations data was taken from the forecasts contained within the SBP Master Plan
Update ". The noise analysis completed for the Report perfectly matches the noise contours in the
2006 EA /EIR. This would not be possible with a modified forecast.
(b) The modification of the Airport Master Plan activity forecast devised by Johnson
Aviation has not been approved by the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, the
ALUC, the FAA, or Caltrans.
Response 123: The Airport Land Use Compatibility Report clearly states "...the SBP EA/EIR
(2006) noise analysis used the SBP Master Plan Update forecasts, and these forecasts were also
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 91 Exhibit B
used to validate that noise analysis, the results of which are summarized in Chapter 6, Airport
Noise. Even though the SBP Master Plan Update forecast is based on aggressive growth at SBP,
and trends that are not in line with existing activity and the FAA forecast, it substantiates the
ultimate development of the Airport, which is shown on the FAA - approved ALP. Table 5 -2
summarizes historical and existing activity at SBP, as well as the FAA TAF and Master Plan
Update forecasts prepared for the Airport." Further evidence that the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report used the Master Plan Update forecasts can be found in Chapter 6 of the
Report where the 2006 EA/EIR noise analysis is validated, "...to prepare the CNEL contours,
aircraft operations data was taken from the forecasts contained within the SBP Master Plan
Update ". The noise analysis completed for the Report perfectly matches the noise contours in the
2006 EA/EIR. This would not be possible with a modified forecast.
(c) Finding 13 contains no factual evidence to support the contention that the LUCE
and Zoning Ordinance Update policies and programs that "address development
standards to regulate development intensity, density, and prohibited uses; infill
development standards, height limitations and other hazards to flight; noise, buyer
awareness measures, avigation easements; airspace obstruction; open land; non-
conforming uses and reconstruction; and City review" do so in a manner consistent with
the cited sections of the Handbook. Thus, Finding 13 is conclusory and not supported by
fact.
Response 124: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -613, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.313 (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA -
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 "provide
for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these
airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards
adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety
problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of
airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive
noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not
already devoted to incompatible uses."
(d) As discussed in Paragraph 27, the City has not demonstrated that the membership
of its City Council includes two (2) members with aeronautical expertise or that the
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 92
Exhibit B
airport provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates have been approved by
Caltrans, requirements placed on "designated body" counties and "designated agency"
counties, respectively.
Response 125: It appears that this comment is referencing Section 21670.1(a) of the Public
Utilities Code which allows a designated body to assume the planning responsibilities of the
ALUC if the board of supervisors and the mayors' committee in a county each determine that
another body can accomplish essential airport land use compatibility planning. Although the
designated body format is quite common among ALUCS, this is not the situation here. The
County has a single purpose entity that is the ALUC which the City acknowledges and has
accepted as the County ALUC. Again, the City's approval of the LUCE Update and zoning
ordinances is not based on the prior designation of a new body to serve as the ALUC. Rather,
the City is following the defined overrule process required by state statute based on the ALUC's
inconsistency determination.
(e) In comparison with the current ALUP, the land use provisions of LUCE and
Zoning Ordinance Update would actually increase the public's exposure to excessive
noise and safety hazards within areas in the vicinity of the SBP.
Response 126: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well -
established federal and state laws and regulations as well as responsive to noise and safety
hazards associated with the current and future operation of aviation activities of SBP. The basic
state criterion sets a CNEL of 65 dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with
urban residential land uses. It should also be noted that on occasion, local considerations
outweigh noise impacts and result in decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCS) to allow
residential development in locations where this use would normally be considered incompatible.
It should also be noted that the City has conditioned residential development upon dedication of
an avigation easement and requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure
that aircraft noise is reduced to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted
that the City is limiting any new residential development to CNEL 60dB.
The noise contours presented in the ALUP are cited as those from a noise study completed by
Brown - Buntin Associates in April, 2001, not the noise analysis that was completed for the
Airport Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA /EIR.
The noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared for the Airport
Master Plan Update. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable
residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from the Brown -
Buntin study (a study that cannot be located), instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The Land
Use Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure using the
noise contours from this Brown - Buntin study instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The
Margarita Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are also
based on the noise contours from the un- locatable Brown - Bunting study instead of the Airport
Master Plan EIR.
This is not consistent with State Statues that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 93
Exhibit B
(f) As discussed in Paragraphs 23 -25 supra, even if the proposed City policies and
programs were in conformance with the Handbook, this would be insufficient to confirm
that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are consistent with the purposes of the
SAA.
Response 127: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670 - 21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
(g) Based on the foregoing, Finding 13 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 128: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule.
xiv. Finding 14
66. Finding 14 provides as follows:
The City's LUCE is consistent with the overall goal of the State Aeronautics Act to
minimize incompatible land uses within the vicinity of the Airport. The LUCE does not
adversely impact public health, welfare and safety or airport operations because it
includes measures to reduce or eliminate any potentially significant noise or safety
impacts, as documented in the Compatibility Report and LUCE Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) through the implementation of a combination of LUCE policies and
the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ). The Caltrans Handbook goes further to delineate the
characteristics of "ideal" safety zones such as "easily definable geometric shapes," a
limited number of five or six zones, a distinct progression in the degree of safety risk
further from the runway and "each zone should be as compact as possible." The City's
proposed LUCE is intended to accomplish this ideal by incorporating those guidelines.
Furthermore, the ALUP noise contours are inconsistent with the verified and validated
noise contours from the County- approved Airport Master Plan EIR using the FAA's latest
version of the Integrated Noise Model (INM).
67. Analysis of Finding 14:
(a) The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates fail to minimize the public's exposure
to airport- related noise as required by PUC Section 21670, because they would permit
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 94
Exhibit B
noise - sensitive development in areas adjacent to the airport where such development does
not already exist and where such noise - sensitive land uses are prohibited by the current
ALUP. Specifically, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would allow for the
establishment of new extremely noise - sensitive land uses between the 55 and 60 dB
CNEL noise contours, while the current ALUP restricts such new development to the
area outside of the 55 dB CNEL contour. Rather than acting to minimize the public's
exposure to airport- related noise, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would
actually increase such exposure, because the "combination of LUCE policies and the
Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)" are less protective of the public than the provisions of the
current ALUP.
Response 129: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well -
established federal and state laws and regulations as well as responsive to noise and safety
hazards associated with the current and future operation of aviation activities of SBP. The basic
state criterion sets a CNEL of 65 dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with
urban residential land uses. It should also be noted that on occasion, local considerations
outweigh noise impacts and result in decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow
residential development in locations where this use would normally be considered incompatible.
It should also be noted that the City has conditioned residential development upon dedication of
an avigation easement and requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure
that aircraft noise is reduced to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted
that the City is limiting any new residential development to CNEL 60dB — the same limits used
in all other areas of the City.
The LUCE relies on the noise contours in the 2006 EA /EIR that was completed for the 2005
AMP Update. These noise contours accurately reflect the noise impacts of ultimate, future
development at SBP, which is shown on the FAA - approved ALP, based on forecasts for the
airport over the next 20 years as provided in the AMP.
(b) The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates fail to minimize the public's exposure
to airport- related safety hazards, because they would permit residential and other
inappropriate development in areas subject to frequent and low- altitude overflight at
densities that are greater than allowable under the current ALUP. Specifically, the LUCE
and Zoning Ordinance Updates would allow for greater density of development and a
wider range of development types (including residential land uses) than the current
ALUP in areas that are within the glide radius that could be achieved by an aircraft
approaching or departing from SBP in the event that such aircraft was disabled by an
engine failure or other in flight emergency. Rather than acting to minimize the public's
exposure to airport- related safety hazards, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates
would actually increase such exposure, because the "combination of LUCE policies and
the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)" are less protective of the public than the provisions of
the current ALUP.
Response 130: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well -
established federal and state laws and regulations as well as responsive to noise and safety
hazards associated with the current and future operation of aviation activities of SBP. The
findings have adequately documented the inconsistencies between the LUCE and safety
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 95 Exhibit B
compatibility in the ALUP, described the measures taken to assure that risks associated with the
LUCE is held to a minimum and indicated that the proposed LUCE policies fall within a level of
acceptable risk considered to be a community norm.
(c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 14 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 131: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule.
xv. Finding 15
68. Finding 15 provides as follows:
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670(a)(b), the Policies and Programs
contained in the Draft LUCE Update ensure the orderly expansion of the airport and
include land use controls that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and
safety hazards within areas around the airport to the extent that these areas are not already
devoted to incompatible uses.
69. Analysis of Finding 15:
(a) Finding 15 is conclusory and not supported by substantial evidence.
Response 132: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA -
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 "provide
for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these
airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards
adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety
problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of
airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 96 Exhibit B
noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not
already devoted to incompatible uses."
(b) As noted in the Paragraph 67 supra, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates fail
to minimize the public's exposure to airport- related noise, because they would permit
noise - sensitive development in areas adjacent to the airport where such development does
not already exist and where noise - sensitive land uses are prohibited by the current ALUP.
Response 133: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well -
established federal and state laws and regulations as well as responsive to noise and safety
hazards associated with the current and future operation of aviation activities of SBP. The basic
state criterion sets a CNEL of 65 dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with
urban residential land uses. It should also be noted that on occasion, local considerations
outweigh noise impacts and result in decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow
residential development in locations where this use would normally be considered incompatible.
It should also be noted that the City has conditioned residential development upon dedication of
an avigation easement and requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure
that aircraft noise is reduced to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted
that the City is limiting any new residential development to CNEL 60dB — the same limit applied
throughout the rest of the City.
(c) As also noted in Paragraph 67, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates fail to
minimize the public's exposure to airport- related safety hazards, because they would
permit (as compared to the current ALUP) an increase in the allowable densities and
types of development in areas subject to aviation hazards due to frequent and low- altitude
overflight.
Response 134: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well -
established federal and state laws and regulations as well as responsive to noise and safety
hazards associated with the current and future operation of aviation activities of SBP. The
findings have adequately documented the inconsistencies between the LUCE and safety
compatibility in the ALUP, described the measures taken to assure that risks associated with the
LUCE is held to a minimum and indicated that the proposed LUCE policies falls within a level
of acceptable risk considered to be a community norm.
(d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 15 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 135: The City has provided much evidence that its findings and proposed action is
consistent with Section 21670 by ensuring that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material was followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -613, Airport Master Plans, FAA AC
150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of'Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.313 (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 97 Exhibit B
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code.
The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update follow precisely the recommended development in the
Airport Master Plan, the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport
Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA /EIR, and guidance in the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per
PUC Section 21670 "provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state
and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the
California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation
of new noise and safety problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the
orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent
that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
Section 21676(b) states: "Prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the
adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary
established by the airport land use commission pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall
first refer the proposed action to the commission. If the commission determines that the proposed
action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The
local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the commission by a two - thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with
the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to
overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the
division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may
provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed
decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this
time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the
division or the commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency
governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the public
record of any final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by a
two - thirds vote of the governing body."
The City has followed all the requirements of PUC Section 21676 (b) regarding referral of
proposed actions to the land use commission, and the right to overrule the land use commission
if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article
stated in Section 21670.
The Council adopted preliminary findings on August 19, 2014 and those findings were
transmitted (and received) by the ALUC on August 20, 2014 and by Caltrans on August 22,
2014. Responses were received from Caltrans on September 22, 2014 and by the ALUC on
September 19, 2014. The Council will not consider final action until October 21, 2014 — 60 days
after transmittal of the findings. Therefore, the City is consistent with PUC Section 21676(b).
xvi. Finding 16
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 98
70. Finding 16 provides as follows:
Exhibit B
The Draft LUCE update and implementing Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ), provide for a
progression of land use density and intensity based on the degree of reduced noise and
safety risk with distance away from the runways, consistent with California Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook guidelines. The FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP)
dated November 4, 2010 depicts the ultimate planned development of SBP facilities,
including runways and associated Runway Protection Zones. The Draft LUCE update and
associated implementation regulations apply noise restrictions based on the FAA -
approved Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity based upon a 20 year
planning horizon. The FAA - approved Master Plan forecast is the best reasonably
foreseeable projection of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for long -term noise planning
purposes.
71. Analysis of Finding 16:
(a) Even assuming arguendo that "the Draft LUCE update and implementing Airport
Overlay Zone (AOZ), provide for a progression of land use density and intensity based
on the degree of reduced noise and safety risk with distance away from the runways,
consistent with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines," this is not
determinative with respective to the question of whether the proposed LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance Updates are consistent with the stated purpose of the SAA to minimize the
public's exposure to airport noise and safety hazards as discussed in Paragraphs 23 -25
supra.
Response 136: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well -
established federal and state laws and regulations as well as responsive to noise and safety
hazards associated with the current and future operation of aviation activities of SBP. The basic
state criterion sets a CNEL of 65 dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with
urban residential land uses. It should also be noted that on occasion, local considerations
outweigh noise impacts and result in decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow
residential development in locations where this use would normally be considered incompatible.
It should also be noted that the City has conditioned residential development upon dedication of
an avigation easement and requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure
that aircraft noise is reduced to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted
that the City is limiting any new residential development to CNEL 60dB.
(b) The current Airport Master Plan includes a forecast of aviation activity at SBP
that extends only through the year 2023 (i.e. nine (9) years into the future). If, as stated in
Finding 16, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates include noise restrictions based on
this forecast, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates do not satisfy the requirements of
PUC Section 21675(a) which states in pertinent part that "The [ ... ] airport land use
compatibility plan shall include and shall be based on a long -range master plan or an
airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of
Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next
20 years" (emphasis added).
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 99 Exhibit B
Response 137: The City relies on the most recent document that provides accurate information
regarding the projected forecasts for the airport and the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan as
per Secion 21675(a). It should be noted that actual annual aviation activity at SBP has been
significantly lower than the SBP Master Plan forecasts. For example, the Master Plan Update
forecast 117,550 total operations in 2008. However, the actual total operations recorded for that
year was 94,824 —a difference of approximately 24 percent. It is also important to note that
while the Master Plan Update forecast operations, enplanements, and based aircraft growing each
year, the actual numbers have declined. Actual annual aviation activity at SBP was 66% lower
than the SBP Master Plan forecast for 2012 and it appears that this gap will grow larger in 2013
with even lower SBP aircraft operations. While it is plausible that at some point in its future
SBP will reach the 140,050 total operations forecast in the Master Plan Update, it is uncertain
when this threshold will be reached. Even though the SBP Master Plan Update forecast is based
on aggressive growth at SBP, and trends that are not in line with existing activity and the FAA
forecast, it substantiates the ultimate development of the Airport, which is shown on the FAA -
approved ALP.
(c) If the noise restrictions contained within the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance
Updates are based upon some extension or modification of the 2003 -to -2023 aviation
activity forecast contained in the Airport Master Plan, the methodology employed in
generating such an extension or modification has not been approved or validated by the
ALUC, Caltrans or the FAA.
Response 138: The Airport Land Use Compatibility Report clearly states "...the SBP EA/EIR
(2006) noise analysis used the SBP Master Plan Update forecasts, and these forecasts were also
used to validate that noise analysis, the results of which are summarized in Chapter 6, Airport
Noise. Even though the SBP Master Plan Update forecast is based on aggressive growth at SBP,
and trends that are not in line with existing activity and the FAA forecast, it substantiates the
ultimate development of the Airport, which is shown on the FAA - approved ALP. Table 5 -2
summarizes historical and existing activity at SBP, as well as the FAA TAF and Master Plan
Update forecasts prepared for the Airport." Further evidence that the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report used the Master Plan Update forecasts can be found in Chapter 6 of the
Report where the 2006 EA /EIR noise analysis is validated, "...to prepare the CNEL contours,
aircraft operations data was taken from the forecasts contained within the SBP Master Plan
Update ". The noise analysis completed for the Report perfectly matches the noise contours in the
2006 EA/EIR. This would not be possible with a modified forecast.
(d) With respect to noise exposure, the Johnson Report and the LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance Updates ignore the following provisions of the Handbook which suggest that a
twenty (20) year-planning horizon is insufficient:
For compatibility planning, however, 20 years may be shortsighted. For most airports, a
lifespan of more than 20 years can reasonably be presumed. Moreover, the need to avoid
incompatible land use development will exist for as long as an airport exists. Once
development occurs near an airport, it is virtually impossible - -or, at the very least, costly
and time consuming -to modify the land uses to ones that are more compatible with
airport activities (see Handbook, page 3 -5).
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 100
Exhibit B
The "at least" phrase in the statute warrants emphasis. The 20 -year time frame should be
considered a minimum for compatibility plans. Noise impacts (as well as other
compatibility concerns) should be viewed from the longest practical time perspective
(see Handbook, page 3 -6).
In conducting noise analyses for ALUCPs, the long -range time frame is almost always of
greatest significance (see Handbook, page 3 -6).
Response 139: The City relies on the most recent document that provides accurate information
regarding the projected forecasts for the airport and the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan as
per Secion 21675(a). It should be noted that actual annual aviation activity at SBP has been
significantly lower than the SBP Master Plan forecasts. For example, the Master Plan Update
forecast 117,550 total operations in 2008. However, the actual total operations recorded for that
year was 94,824 —a difference of approximately 24 percent. It is also important to note that
while the Master Plan Update forecast operations, enplanements, and based aircraft growing each
year, the actual numbers have declined. Actual annual aviation activity at SBP was 66% lower
than the SBP Master Plan forecast for 2012 and it appears that this gap will grow larger in 2013
with even lower SBP aircraft operations. While it is plausible that at some point in its future
SBP will reach the 140,050 total operations forecast in the Master Plan Update, it is uncertain
when this threshold will be reached. Even though the SBP Master Plan Update forecast is based
on aggressive growth at SBP, and trends that are not in line with existing activity and the FAA
forecast, it substantiates the ultimate development of the Airport, which is shown on the FAA -
approved ALP.
(e) There is no indication that the noise contours included in the Johnson Report were
constructed by a firm or individual with recognized expertise in noise modeling.
Response 140: The noise contours and associated technical information were developed in the
San Luis Obispo Regional Airport Master Plan Update EA/EIR that was adopted by the County
of San Luis Obispo in 2006. Johnson Aviation used this same technical information to validate
the originally adopted Master Plan Update noise contours using the FAA's latest version of the
Integrated Noise Model (INM). Johnson Aviation also fulfilled a request by the ALUC to view
the 55 dB CNEL noise contour in addition to the 60 dB, 65 dB, and 70 dB CNEL noise contours
provided in the EA /EIR. The contours appear almost identical with variations attributable to
increased accuracy of aircraft profiles. These results have been provided to the Airport
Manager's consultant to independently review and verify.
(0 Finding 16 fails to address whether the City's proposed action to overrule the
ALUC's determination of inconsistency is consistent with the purposes of the SAA to
minimize the public's exposure to airport noise and safety hazards.
Response 141: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well -
established federal and state laws and regulations as well as responsive to noise and safety
hazards associated with the current and future operation of aviation activities of SBP. The basic
state criterion sets a CNEL of 65 dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with
urban residential land uses. It should also be noted that on occasion, local considerations
outweigh noise impacts and result in decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 101 Exhibit B
residential development in locations where this use would normally be considered incompatible.
It should also be noted that the City has conditioned residential development upon dedication of
an avigation easement and requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure
that aircraft noise is reduced to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted
that the City is limiting any new residential development to CNEL 60dB — the same limit applied
everywhere else in the City.
(g) Based on the foregoing, Finding 16 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 142: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule.
xvii. Finding 17
72. Finding 17 provides as follows:
Policies and programs contained in the City's LUCE Update and implementing zoning
regulations do not replace or usurp the ALUC's authority because the LUCE policies and
programs only apply within the city limits. In addition, all future projects involving a
legislative act, such as a general plan amendment, specific plan or zone change, would be
referred to the ALUC for an ALUP consistency determination as reflected in the
implementing Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.030(C).
73. Analysis of Finding 17:
(a) Under the provisions of state law, the powers, duties and responsibilities of the
ALUC extend to all of the area encompassed by the ALUP irrespective of local agency
jurisdiction. The fact that the policies and programs contained in the City's LUCE and
Zoning Ordinance Updates seek to replace and usurp the ALUC's authority in only a
portion of the established airport land use planning area in no way diminishes the gravity
of such usurpation.
Response 143: The City is proposing to overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination
specifically for the update of the LUCE of the City's General Plan and the associated Airport
Overlay Zoning Regulations. The City is not overruling the ALUC or in any way trying to usurp
its powers. Instead, the City is following the State Aeronautics Act provisions as provided for
under the California Public Utilities Code Section 21676 (b).
(b) As discussed in Paragraph 12 supra, Caltrans has provided the following
comments concerning the appropriateness and legality of the airport land use
compatibility policies and programs contained with the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance
Updates:
Even if the time and expense of an overrule is pursued by the City, the proposed airport
programs and policies in the LUCE are so comprehensive that they have the net effect of
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 102
Exhibit B
amending the ALUCP and its policies, circumventing the ALUC's project review process,
and nearly establishing a separate airport land use commission that would replace the
County's. State law does not support such a wholesale transfer of airport land use
compatibility planning to any other entity. State law specifically authorizes the
establishment ofALUCs in a manner consistent with the law, and authorizes only them to
formulate and adopt ALUCPs (italics added).
Response 144: The City is not amending the ALUCP and its policies, circumventing the
ALUC's project review process, or establishing a separate airport land use commission. Rather,
it is proceeding with an overrule in those areas that are inconsistent with the ALUP policies as
required by law. The City did not indicate that project- specific overrides would be forthcoming
because the LUCE process is a General Plan update and policies and programs apply city -wide.
The policies and implementation refer to guidance from the Handbook, the Airport Land Use
Plan as well as FAA regulations. The AOZ explicitly references future referrals to the ALUC.
The particular areas of physical change were shared with the ALUC sub - committee and publicly
posted (as have been all staff reports, minutes, workshop summaries, background reports,
PowerPoints, Task Force, Planning Commission, and City Council proceedings related to the
LUCE process). The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The Report also provides updated technical
information on the progress of airport development and operations since the completion of the
most recent San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan Update, which the
current ALUP does not provide. Supporting this updated information is accurate graphical
information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport's safety zones, noise impact areas and
overflight areas, which the current ALUP also does not provide. The noise contours provided in
the ALUP are cited as being based on a Brown Buntin Study completed in 2001 (which cannot
be located), not on the 2006 EA/EIR completed for the Airport Master Plan Update.
(c) Based on the analysis provided by Caltrans, it can be concluded that Caltrans
considers the airport land use compatibility policies and programs contained with the
LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates to be a usurpation of the office and authority of
the established ALUC. Under the provisions of the California Government Code, such
usurpation may be cause for referral to and action by the Office of the Attorney General
of the State of California.
Response 145: The City is proposing to overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination
specifically for the update of the LUCE of the City's General Plan and the associated Airport
Overlay Zoning Regulations. The City is not overruling the ALUC or in any way trying to usurp
its powers. Instead, the City is following the State Aeronautics Act provisions as provided for
under the California Public Utilities Code Section 21676 (b).
(d) Finding 17 does not address whether the City's proposed action to overrule the
ALUC's determination of inconsistency is consistent with the purposes of the SAA to
minimize the public's exposure to airport noise and safety hazards and is, therefore,
irrelevant.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 103 Exhibit B
Response 146: The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well -
established federal and state laws and regulations as well as responsive to noise and safety
hazards associated with the current and future operation of aviation activities of SBP.. The basic
state criterion sets a CNEL of 65 dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with
urban residential land uses. It should also be noted that on occasion, local considerations
outweigh noise impacts and result in decisions by local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow
residential development in locations where this use would normally be considered incompatible.
It should also be noted that the City has conditioned residential development upon dedication of
an avigation easement and requirements for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure
that aircraft noise is reduced to an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted
that the City is limiting any new residential development to CNEL 60dB — consistent with
limitations applied throughout the City.
(e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 17 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 147: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule.
xviii. Finding 18
74. Finding 18 provides as follows:
The ALUP contains land use criteria for a Maneuvering Zone and S 1 -C Zone that have
no equivalent in the Handbook Guidelines, and an S -2 Zone that is larger in size and
contains unduly restrictive use limitations compared to that recommended by the
Handbook guidelines (See Handbook, Page 3 -15 through Page 3 -16), yet no facts or data
supporting the configuration or the use limitations are available. Such unnecessary and
unjustified restrictions may constitute a 'take' and it is not in the community's interest to
unnecessarily limit the City's ability to accommodate desired infill growth. Therefore, the
City will opt to exercise its rights under Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) to
overrule the ALUC with regard to this matter. The City's overrule is supported by the fact
that the combination of LUCE policies and the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) provide
standards for development that protect public health and safety consistent with the State
Aeronautics Act as evidenced in the analysis shown in the Airport Compatibility Report,
and are consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and protect
public health and safety consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as evidenced in the
analysis shown in the Airport Compatibility Report incorporated by reference. The
policies, programs and implementation of the LUCE include standards that address
development intensity, density, and prohibited uses; infill development standards, height
limitations and other hazards to flight; noise, buyer awareness measures, avigation
easements; airspace obstruction; open land; non - conforming uses and reconstruction; and
City review. The Compatibility Report section 4.3 evaluated adjustment factors and
determined that no safety zone adjustments are required to California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook safety zone configurations for SBP. Evaluation and
recommendations listed in Section 9 of the Compatibility Report indicate that compliance
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 104
Exhibit B
with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidance for uses appropriate
to each safety zone meets the State Aeronautics Act Section 21674.7(b) direction to
discourage incompatible land uses around the airport.
75. Analysis of Finding 18:
(a) With respect to the existence of Aviation Safety Area S -lc and the size and
configuration of Aviation Safety Area S -2, the City has acknowledged (see Finding 8),
that state law vests in the ALUC the full authority to designate aviation safety zones
which are different in size and configuration from the generic safety zones depicted in the
Handbook.
Response 148: The Handbook states, "While ALUCs are not mandated to use the sample zones
provided in the Handbook, they are mandated to create zones that have easily definable
geometric shapes, are as compact as possible, have a distinct progression in the degree of risk
represented, and are limited to a realistic number (five or six should be adequate in most cases)."
The generic safety zones already take into account many of the factors common to all airports of
similar characteristics. The Handbook states, "the shapes and sizes of the zones were established
based upon mathematical analyses of the accident location data presented in this and Appendix
E. Not clearly stated in past editions, though, was that another factor also played a part in the
zone delineation and is important to acknowledge here: flight parameters. More specifically, as
an aircraft approaches for landing or climbs out after takeoff, how is it being operated? Where is
it normally flying relative to the runway, and at what altitude? Is it flying straight and level or
turning and climbing or descending? What actions pose the greatest stress on the aircraft and
greatest potential for loss of control or fewest options for recovery if the unexpected occurs?
Where are conflicts between aircraft in flight most likely to happen and potentially create risks
for the land uses below ?"
(b) The assertion that "no facts or data supporting the configuration or the use
limitations are available" is untrue. A detailed discussion of the considerations that
resulted in the size, shape, and configuration of the aviation safety zones for SBP was
presented at the June 19, 2013 meeting of the ALUC. This presentation was viewed by
representatives of the CDD and a recording of the material presented is accessible at the
following link: http: // slocounty .granicus.com /MediaPlayer.php ?view _id =33 &clip_id=
1527.
Response 149: The ALUP does not specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table
3A of the Handbook. There is no discussion of how topography, geography, special flight
procedures, special purpose aircraft, small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing
thresholds (something that is being corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the
safety zones recommended in the Handbook. For the ALUP's S -2 safety zone, the ALUP
discusses the circle -to -land instrument approaches south of Runway 11 -29 as a consideration,
however, the circling minimum altitudes for these procedures are at standard traffic pattern
altitudes. Even though these procedures are available, there are safer, straight -in approaches
available for both runway ends of Runway 11 -29.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 105 Exhibit B
ALUP Section 4.4.3, Delineation of Safety Areas, states the considerations of primary
importance: "a. The flight paths most heavily utilized by aircraft departing from or approaching
to land at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport — Flight paths utilized by a relatively
high proportion of arriving or departing aircraft are associated with an increased accident risk. b.
The flight paths utilized by aircraft departing from or approaching to land at the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport during adverse weather conditions — Maintaining control of an aircraft
in conditions that make visualization of the horizon and the ground impossible is one of the most
challenging tasks that a pilot can face. Flight paths which have been designated by the Federal
Aviation Administration for use during reduced - visibility conditions, therefore, are of significant
concern to the ALUC. c. The anticipated altitude of aircraft operations — A critical operational
element in ensuring the safety of persons and property on the ground is the ability of the pilot of
a disabled airplane to avoid impact with inhabited structures. The likelihood of the pilot
accomplishing this is directly related to the time and gliding distance available, and both of these
are dependent on the aircraft's altitude at the time a malfunction occurs." There is no discussion
of how topography, geography, special flight procedures, special purpose aircraft, small aircraft
using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds warrant adjustments to the safety zones
recommended in the Handbook. There is only discussion in the ALUP's Section 4.4.3 and
subsequent Section 4.4.4 (Delineation of Aviation Safety Sub - Areas) on considerations
surrounding flight maneuvers, which the Handbook's generic safety zones already take into
account.
(c) The assertions that the current ALUP "contains unduly restrictive growth
limitations" or "unnecessary and unjustified restrictions" are conclusory and not
supported by any facts or evidence.
Response 150: The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable residential
noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from a noise study completed
by Brown - Buntin Associates in 2001 instead of the 2006 Airport Master Plan EA/EIR. The
Brown - Buntin study cannot be located, evaluated, or reviewed. The Land Use Compatibility
Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure using the noise contours
from the Brown - Buntin study instead of the 2006 Airport Master Plan EA/EIR. The Margarita
Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are also based on
the noise contours from the un- locatable Brown - Buntin study instead of the 2006 Airport Master
Plan EA/EIR. The noise contours in the Brown - Buntin study vastly differ from those in the 2006
EA/EIR and create land use policies in the ALUP with unnecessary and unjustified restrictions.
(d) As set forth in the analysis contained within Paragraphs 17, 23 -25 and 41 supra,
the assertion that "the City's overrule is supported by the fact that the combination of
LUCE policies and the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) provide standards for development
that protect public health and safety consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as
evidenced in the analysis shown in the Airport Compatibility Report, and are consistent
with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and protect public health and
safety consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as evidenced in the analysis shown in the
Airport Compatibility Report incorporated by reference" is not supported by fact or
evidence and is insufficient to demonstrate that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates
will be as effective as the ALUP in promoting the purpose of the SAA to "minimize the
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 106
Exhibit B
public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public
airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses" as
required by PUC Section 21670.
Response 151: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -613, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.313 (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA -
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 "provide
for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these
airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards
adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety
problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of
airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive
noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not
already devoted to incompatible uses."
(e) Proposed Finding 18 states that "The Compatibility Report section 4.3 evaluated
adjustment factors and determined that no safety zone adjustments are required to
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook safety zone configurations for SBP." As
discussed in Paragraphs 23 -25 supra, only the ALUC is vested with the discretion to
apply the recommendations set forth in the Handbook. Moreover, the Johnson Report
devoted minimal consideration to the need to adjust the generic aviation safety zones set
forth in the Handbook for operational, meteorological, and geographic conditions at SBP.
The ALUC has formally informed the City of this deficiency in the ALUC Report (see
Exhibit D). The following language contained within the Johnson Report provides an
example illustrative of the Johnson Report's failure to adjust safety zones for the specific
operational characteristics of SBP consistent with the Handbook: "High terrain exists in
the area of SBP but does not impede the standard traffic pattern" (see Johnson Report,
page 37). In actuality, the visual glideslope for Runway 29 requires a 3.25° descent
(rather than the standard 3.00° slope) and the GPS approach to Runway 29 requires a
3.47° slope precisely because of high terrain in the vicinity.
Response 152: The terrain does not change the flight path on the right downwind for Runway
29. While aircraft do fly a downwind outside Islay Hill, this is not outside the FAA's
recommendations for a standard air traffic pattern. Standard traffic patterns are typically flown to
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 107 Exhibit B
the left, 1,000 feet above airport elevation, and approximately a '/2 mile to 1 mile out from the
landing runway. At airports with air traffic control towers (such as at SBP), the tower often
instructs the pilot to enter the pattern at any point or straight -in for landing. Figure 10 in the
ALUP, Aircraft Flight Paths, illustrates the typical flight patterns flown at SBP. The arrival and
departure tracks used for EA/EIR noise modeling also show typical flight patterns to the right
and left of Runway 11/29. The distance from the runway is not increased or decreased to avoid
any terrain; the altitudes above airport elevation are also not adjusted for terrain. Since Runway
29 is used 77% of the time for arrivals, departures, and touch - and -goes, the majority of pilots
using SBP do not even have to deal with the terrain on the north side of the airport.
The minor adjustment in glideslope for Runway 29 is not because of high terrain in the vicinity,
it is for obstruction clearance (light poles in traffic intersection of Edna Road and Buckley Road)
in the last 1500 feet of the approach. Simply because terrain exists in the vicinity of an airport
does not by itself change the risk profile or safety setting of the operation for the surrounding
community.
(f) It should also be noted that within the past ten (10) years there has been a fatal
airplane crash within the SBP airport planning area due to an aircraft impacting high
terrain during departure.
Response 153: The City's Airport Land Use Compatibility Report provides a complete analysis
of aircraft accidents and incidents at San Luis Obispo Airport and in the airport vicinity from
1982 to present. The methodology for this review of accidents followed the same methodology
as used for the Handbook Appendix E analysis and criteria. Of the accidents investigated by the
NTSB, none involved fatalities of people on the ground.
(g) As discussed in Paragraph 27 supra, the City has not demonstrated that the
membership of its City Council includes two (2) members with aeronautical expertise or
that the airport provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates have been
approved by Caltrans, requirements placed on "designated body" counties and
"designated agency" counties, respectively.
Response 154: The City is not contending that it is the ALUC for the County. Rather, the City
is complying with the requirements of an overrule with respect to the finding of inconsistency
made by the ALUC concerning the LUCE Update.
(h) The allegation that restrictions contained within the ALUP may constitute a 'take'
is conclusory and not supported by any factual evidence or legal analysis (see the analysis
contained within Paragraph 84 infra).
Response 155: The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable residential
noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours from a noise study completed
by Brown - Buntin Associates in 2001 instead of the 2006 Airport Master Plan EA/EIR. The
Brown - Buntin study cannot be located, evaluated, or reviewed. The Land Use Compatibility
Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport noise exposure using the noise contours
from the Brown - Buntin study instead of the 2006 Airport Master Plan EA /EIR. The Margarita
Area Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are also based on
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 108 Exhibit B
the noise contours from the un- locatable Brown - Buntin study instead of the 2006 Airport Master
Plan EA /EIR. The noise contours in the Brown - Buntin study vastly differ from those in the 2006
EA/EIR and create land use policies in the ALUP with unnecessary and unjustified restrictions.
This in itself warrants an overrule.
(i) Based on the foregoing, Finding 18 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the
overrule.
Response 156: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule.
xix. Finding 19
76. Finding 19 provides as follows:
The planned facilities identified in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP)
Master Plan, and on the FAA - approved ALP accommodate forecast demand. However,
as noted in the SBP Master Plan Update, "the cost - effective, efficient, and orderly
development of an airport should rely more upon actual demand at an airport than on a
time -based forecast figure" (See Chapter 5 of the Airport Compatibility Report for a
complete discussion of and validation of the AMP Forecast for use as intended under the
PUC Section 21675), "that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the
next 20 years." This is why the planning of facilities at SBP is based on milestones of
short, intermediate, and long term aviation activity versus actual years even though the
Master Plan forecast covered 20 years from when it was published in 2004. The planning
of facilities at SBP incorporates milestones of short, intermediate, and long term aviation
activity indicate when facilities will respond to aviation activity in addition to the
anticipated forecast horizon.
77. Response to Finding 19:
(a) The existing ALUP was adopted in 2005 and was based upon the aviation activity
forecasts of the then - current 1998 Airport Master Plan. For purposes of the ALUP,
however, the Airport Master Plan forecast was extended to the year 2025 (i.e. 20 years
from the date of adoption of the ALUP). Finding 19 appears to support this forecast
methodology and, therefore, provides no valid support for an overrule of the ALUP's
determination of inconsistency with respect to the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update.
Response 157: Page 3 -47 of the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states,
" ALUCs are not empowered to determine what the future airfield configuration, airport role, or
activity levels will be. State statutes direct that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan." Finding 19 does not infer a forecast methodology, it merely justifies the use of the
forecasts in the 2005 Airport Master Plan Update as the basis for the ultimate facilities
development shown on the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan, even though actual annual
aviation activity at SBP has been significantly lower than the SBP Master Plan forecasts. For
example, the Master Plan Update forecast 117,550 total operations in 2008. However, the actual
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 109 Exhibit B
total operations recorded for that year was 94,824 —a difference of approximately 24 percent. It
is also important to note that while the Master Plan Update forecast operations, enplanements,
and based aircraft growing each year, the actual numbers have declined. Actual annual aviation
activity at SBP was 66% lower than the SBP Master Plan forecast for 2012 and it appears that
this gap will grow larger in 2013 with even lower SBP aircraft operations. While it is plausible
that at some point in its future SBP will reach the 140,050 total operations forecast in the Master
Plan Update, it is uncertain when this threshold will be reached. Furthermore, the City is
overruling the ALUC because the City's proposed policies are inconsistent with the ALUP, not
because the City does or does not support the ALUC's forecast methodology.
(b) For purposes of the upcoming update of the ALUP, the ALUC has elected to
consider a forty (40) year planning horizon, a time frame which is more appropriate to the
actual expected future lifespan of the airport and of surrounding development and which
is consistent with the following guidance provided by the Handbook and previously set
forth in Paragraph 71 supra:
For compatibility planning, however, 20 years may be shortsighted. For most
airports, a lifespan of more than 20 years can reasonably be presumed. Moreover,
the need to avoid incompatible land use development will exist for as long as an
airport exists. Once development occurs near an airport, it is virtually impossible -
-or, at the very least, costly and time consuming -to modify the land uses to ones
that are more compatible with airport activities (see Handbook, page 3 -5).
The "at least" phrase in the statute warrants emphasis. The 20 -year time frame
should be considered a minimum for compatibility plans. Noise impacts (as well
as other compatibility concerns) should be viewed from the longest practical time
perspective (see Handbook, page 3 -6).
In conducting noise analyses for ALUCPs, the long -range time frame is almost
always of greatest significance (see Handbook, page 3 -6).
Response 158: Page 3 -47 of the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states,
" ALUCs are not empowered to determine what the future airfield configuration, airport role, or
activity levels will be. State statutes direct that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan." Before constructing any further forecasts for SBP using its own methodologies, the ALUC
should note that the 2005 Airport Master Plan Update is the basis for the ultimate facilities
development shown on the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan, even though actual annual
aviation activity at SBP has been significantly lower than the SBP Master Plan forecasts. For
example, the Master Plan Update forecast 117,550 total operations in 2008. However, the actual
total operations recorded for that year was 94,824 —a difference of approximately 24 percent. It
is also important to note that while the Master Plan Update forecast operations, enplanements,
and based aircraft growing each year, the actual numbers have declined. Actual annual aviation
activity at SBP was 66% lower than the SBP Master Plan forecast for 2012 and it appears that
this gap will grow larger in 2013 with even lower SBP aircraft operations. While it is plausible
that at some point in its future SBP will reach the 140,050 total operations forecast in the Master
Plan Update, it is uncertain when this threshold will be reached. It may not even be reached over
a 40 year planning horizon.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 110
Exhibit B
(c) The Johnson Report utilizes aviation activity forecasts from the 2005 Airport
Master Plan, which, unlike the forecasts used in formulating the current ALUP, extend
only through the year 2023.
Response 159: The Johnson Report (The Airport Land Use Compatibility Report) very clearly
states that actual annual aviation activity at SBP has been significantly lower than the SBP
Master Plan forecasts. This is why it is uncertain when in its future SBP will reach the 140,050
total operations forecast in the Master Plan Update. The Report also very clearly states that even
though the SBP Master Plan Update forecast is based on aggressive growth at SBP, and trends
that are not in line with existing activity and the FAA forecast, it substantiates the ultimate
development of the Airport, which is shown on the FAA - approved ALP. This is why the
planning of facilities at SBP is based on milestones of short, intermediate, and long term aviation
activity versus actual years. The cost - effective, efficient, and orderly development of an airport
should rely more upon actual demand at an airport than on a time -based forecast figure.
(d) The ALUC has consulted with Caltrans regarding the methodology employed to
extend the aviation activity forecasts of the current Airport Master Plan to a 40 -year
planning horizon in the pending ALUP update and has been advised that it is consistent
with the Handbook and PUC Section 21675(a).
Response 160: Page 3 -47 of the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states,
"ALUCs are not empowered to determine what the future airfield configuration, airport role, or
activity levels will be. State statutes direct that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan." Before constructing any further forecasts for SBP using its own methodologies, the ALUC
should note that the 2005 Airport Master Plan Update is the basis for the ultimate facilities
development shown on the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan, even though actual annual
aviation activity at SBP has been significantly lower than the SBP Master Plan forecasts. For
example, the Master Plan Update forecast 117,550 total operations in 2008. However, the actual
total operations recorded for that year was 94,824 —a difference of approximately 24 percent. It
is also important to note that while the Master Plan Update forecast operations, enplanements,
and based aircraft growing each year, the actual numbers have declined. Actual annual aviation
activity at SBP was 66% lower than the SBP Master Plan forecast for 2012 and it appears that
this gap will grow larger in 2013 with even lower SBP aircraft operations. While it is plausible
that at some point in its future SBP will reach the 140,050 total operations forecast in the Master
Plan Update, it is uncertain when this threshold will be reached. It may not even be reached over
a 40 year planning horizon.
(e) Given the above, it can be concluded as follows:
(i) The discussion contained in Finding 20 presents no factual evidence to
suggest that the forecast methodology employed in constructing the airport land
use compatibility provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will
minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards, when compared with
the provisions of the current ALUP, and
Response 161: There was no forecast methodology employed in constructing the airport land
use compatibility provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates. The City used the
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 111 Exhibit B
forecasts provided in the 2005 Airport Master Plan Update and subsequent 2006 EA/EIR. The
City also used the noise contours presented in the 2006 EA /EIR to support its land use policies.
The City's land use policies for residential development are consistent with well- established
federal and state laws and regulations. The basic state criterion sets a CNEL of 65 dB as the
maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. It should also be
noted that on occasion, local considerations outweigh noise impacts and result in decisions by
local jurisdictions (or even ALUCs) to allow residential development in locations where this use
would normally be considered incompatible. It should also be noted that the City has
conditioned residential development upon dedication of an avigation easement and requirements
for sufficient acoustic insulation of structures to assure that aircraft noise is reduced to an interior
noise level of 45 dB CNEL. It should also be noted that the City is limiting any new residential
development to CNEL 60dB.
(ii) The fact that the draft update to the ALUP contains a forty (40) year
aviation activity forecast strongly suggests that LUCE and Zoning Ordinance
Updates will not minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards as
effectively as the ALUP update.
Response 162: The City is not overruling a future draft update to the ALUP. The City is
overruling findings related to the existing ALUP as required by state law. Discussion about
whattype of forecasts the ALUP Update may or may not contain is not relevant.
(f) Based on the foregoing, Finding 19 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 163: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule.
xx. Finding 20
78. Finding 20 provides as follows:
The recession that began in 2007 had a great impact on air travel. SBP lost nearly 34% of
its enplanements as carriers responded to the rising price of oil, declining demand and
realigned air service networks. Actual annual aviation activity at SBP has been
significantly lower than the SBP Master Plan forecasts. Even though the SBP Master Plan
Update forecast is based on aggressive growth at SBP, and trends that are not in line with
existing activity and the FAA forecast, facilities called for in the Master Plan it support
the ultimate physical development of the Airport, which is shown in the County- adopted
Master Plan and on the FAA- approved ALP. The preferred use of the SBP Master Plan
Update forecast is consistent with the Handbook guidance that, "[even when the forecasts
and contours in a master plan do not extend at least 20 years into the future, information
contained about the intended role and future physical characteristics of the airport is
needed for compatibility planning (See Handbook, Pages 3 -7, 3- 8)." Actual annual
aviation activity at SBP was 66% lower than the SBP Master Plan forecast for 2012, and
this gap grew larger in 2013 with even lower SBP aircraft operations. Thus, the Master
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 112
Exhibit B
Plan forecast and associated noise contours form a conservative base of information to
use when considering long term compatibility of land uses through the LUCE update.
The proposed land uses and policies do not conflict with the AMP.
79. Analysis of Finding 20:
(a) While it is true that the number of annual airport operations at SBP and across the
country has been adversely impacted by recent developments in the US economy, there is
no evidence to suggest that operations at SBP will not rebound as the national economy
recovers. On the contrary, a closer examination of national, statewide, and local aviation
activity reveals that SBP has retained its market share of California and US operations, in
spite of the economic downturn and is well - positioned to participate in any future
recovery.
Response 164: The City supports future recovery of activity at SBP and fully acknowledges that
the existing AMP plans for and will accommodate that future growth. The information related to
downturn in the economy and its impact on operations merely reflects that the total operations
projected in the AMP are more applicable to the LUCE and the AOZ than the timing associated
with the original forecast year of 2023.
(b) The statement that airport operations in 2013 were lower than in 2012 is
misleading and may be deceptive to readers who are not familiar with the principles of
data analysis and statistical significance. Within any set of collected data, some variation
is to be expected merely by chance. Such variations do not represent an indication of any
real change and are considered to be "statistically insignificant." The amount of variation
due to chance in any set of data is related to a quantity termed the "standard deviation" of
the data. This is a measure of the degree to which the collected data is tightly grouped or
widely spread. Data points can only be considered as significantly different from the
mean (roughly speaking, the average) of the sample if they vary from the mean by two
(2) standard deviations or more. Between 1990 and 2012, the annual variation in the
number of operations at SBP has varied from a maximum of 26,087 between 1998 and
1999 to a minimum of 1,256 between 2009 and 2010. Statistically, the mean year -to -year
fluctuation has been 7,337 annual operations, with a standard deviation of 6,658 annual
operations. In consequence, any annual change in the number of airport operations that is
less than 20,653 operations cannot be reliably considered to be anything other than a
random fluctuation and should not be considered for planning purposes. In the case of
the annual airport operations data for SBP there have been, since 1990, only two (2)
statistically significant year -to -year changes in the number of operations - an increase of
21,404 operations between 1990 and 1991 and an increase of 26,087 operations between
1998 and 1999. Consequently, the airport operations data contained in Finding 20 does
not provide any support or justification for an action to overrule the ALUC's
determination of inconsistency.
Response 165: PUC Section 21675 requires the ALUC to formulate a plan that includes and is
based upon the long range master plan or airport layout plan (ALP) "that reflects the anticipated
growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years." When the AMP was adopted the plan
was intended to reflect the upcoming 20 years of anticipated growth and its operational forecast
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 113 Exhibit B
was consistent with FAA AC I 50/5070 -6B. Finding 20 describes the fact that the noise contours
in the ALUP far exceed those of the adopted AMP and the AMP itself reflects an aggressive
amount of growth than has not materialized. Despite the fact an update to the AMP today might
result in much more conservative operational forecasts (in light of current TAF's), the City is
using the AMP and the FAA - approved ALP as a long term forecast of activity and ultimate
airport development by which to estimate potential noise impacts in compliance with PUC 21675
and the Handbook. While statistical variations year to year may not be significant for any one
year, trends experienced over successive years are important to note which is what the Johnson
Aviation report has focused on — trends versus change predicated on evidence from a single year.
(c) Regardless of the City's opinion of the airport activity forecasts contained within
the current Airport Master Plan, Airport Master Plan forecasts are established by PUC
Section 21675(a) as the only legitimate forecasts for airport land use compatibility
planning. The discretion to "extend" the Airport Master Plan forecast where necessary to
meet the planning horizon rests with the ALUC.
Response 166: Page 3 -47 of the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states,
"ALUCs are not empowered to determine what the future airfield configuration, airport role, or
activity levels will be. State statutes direct that an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master
plan." The ALUC states that the AMP is the only legitimate forecast for airport land use
compatibility planning but that is not the forecast used to generate the noise contours in the
ALUP as evidenced by the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report, which validated the noise
contours prepared for the 2006 EA /EIR. The LUCE and AOZ include and reflect the operational
forecasts and associated noise contours incorporated in the AMP and corresponding EIR in
accordance with PUC 21675.
(d) The City's refusal to accept the priority conferred by the SAA upon the airport
activity forecasts contained within the current Airport Master Plan that extend at least 20
years and the discretion of the ALUC to extend the forecast contained within the Airport
Master Plan as necessary to meet the requirements of PUC Section 21675(a) supports the
contention that the City's LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are inconsistent with the
stated purpose of the SAA to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and
safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not
already devoted to incompatible uses.
Response 167: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670 - 21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning. The LUCE and
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 114 Exhibit B
AOZ rely on the AMP EIR for noise contours and forecast of future operations in order to
address potential impacts to land uses. This is consistent with the Handbook and with PUC
21675.
(e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 20 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 168: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxi. Finding 21
80. Finding 21 provides as follows:
The SBP Master Plan Update forecast greatly exceeds the current actual operations
activity as well as the FAA's Terminal Area Forecast of operations that extends out to
2040. As per FAA AC I 50/5070 -6B, Airport Master Plans, master plan forecasts for
operations, based aircraft, and enplanements are considered to be consistent with the
Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) if they differ by less than 10 percent in the 5 -year forecast
and 15 percent in the 10 -year period for "other commercial service airports" like SBP.
The current Master Plan for SBP differs more than 10% in the 5 -year forecast and 15% in
the 10 -year forecast which indicates that the operational projections in the Master Plan
are more aggressive than likely and may be used as a very long term conservative
projection of potential aircraft operational noise. Thus, the Master Plan forecast and
associated noise contours form a conservative base of information to use when
considering long term compatibility of land uses through the LUCE update. (See
Handbook, Pages 3 -7, 3 -8).
81. Analysis of Finding 21:
(a) The FAA Advisory Circular cited in Finding 2I (FAA AC I 50/5070 -6B) is only
applicable to the preparation and revision of Airport Master Plans. The requirements of
FAA AC I 50/5070 -6B were adhered to in the formulation and adoption of the current
Airport Master Plan for SBP. FAA AC I 50/5070 -6B, however, has no applicability with
respect to either an established and duly- adopted Airport Master Plan or to the
preparation and adoption of an ALUP.
Response 169: PUC Section 21675 requires the ALUC to formulate a plan that includes and is
based upon the long range master plan or airport layout plan "that reflects the anticipated growth
of the airport during at least the next 20 years." When the AMP was adopted the plan was
intended to reflect the upcoming 20 years of anticipated growth and its operational forecast was
consistent with FAA AC I 50/5070 -6B. Finding 21 describes the fact that the noise contours in
the ALUP are based on forecasts that far exceed the forecasts in the adopted AMP and the noise
contours in the 2006 EA/EIR prepared for the master plan. This is not in line with the ultimate
development of the airport as presented in the FAA - approved ALP. The AMP itself reflects an
aggressive amount of growth that has not materialized. Despite the fact that an update to the
AMP today might result in much more conservative operational forecasts (in light of current
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 115 Exhibit B
TAFs), the City is using the AMP as a long term forecast of activity by which to estimate
potential noise impacts in compliance with PUC 21675, the Handbook, and the FAA - approved
ALP.
(b) As previously discussed supra, PUC Section 2 I 675(a) requires as follows:
Each commission shall formulate an airport land use compatibility plan that will
provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the
airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the general
welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in
general. The commission's airport land use compatibility plan shall include and
shall be based on a long -range master plan or an airport layout plan, as
determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation
that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years
[ ... ]
Response 170: This is a statement of code. Comment noted.
(c) As discussed in Paragraph 79 supra, regardless of the City's opinion of the airport
activity forecasts contained within the current Airport Master Plan, Airport Master Plan
forecasts are established by PUC Section 2I 675(a) as the only legitimate forecasts for
airport land use compatibility planning. The discretion to "extend" the Airport Master
Plan forecast where necessary to meet the planning horizon rests with the ALUC. In
addition, based on the language contained within PUC Section 21675(a), the FAA
Terminal Area Forecast is not an appropriate basis for airport land use compatibility
planning.
Response 171: The ALUC states that the AMP is the only legitimate forecast for airport land use
compatibility planning but the ALUP fails to base its noise contours and land use policies on the
AMP and FAA - approved ALP. The LUCE and AOZ include and reflect the operational
forecasts and associated noise contours incorporated in the AMP EIR in accordance with PUC
21675. The City did not state that the TAF was an appropriate forecast to use for long term
planning purposes, but rather that understanding the context of the AMP in light of the TAF
provided assurance that the AMP is an adequate forecast to use for understanding potential long
term noise impacts to the community based on the ultimate airport development shown on the
FAA - approved ALP.
(d) As also discussed in Paragraph 79 supra, the City's refusal to accept the priority
conferred by the SAA upon the airport activity forecasts contained within the current
Airport Master Plan that extend at least 20 years and the discretion of the ALUC to
extend the forecast contained within the Airport Master Plan as necessary to meet the
requirements of PUC Section 21675(a) supports the contention that the City's LUCE and
Zoning Ordinance Update is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the SAA to minimize
the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public
airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 116 Exhibit B
Response 172: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670 - 21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning. The LUCE and
AOZ rely on the AMP for forecasts of future operations, its corresponding 2006 EA/EIR for
noise contours, and the FAA - approved ALP for ultimate airport development in order to address
potential impacts to land uses. This is consistent with the Handbook and with PUC 21675.
(e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 21 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 173: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law
xxii. Finding 22
82. Finding 22 provides as follows:
The City is concerned that limiting new residential and other noise sensitive uses to areas
outside the 55 dB CNEL noise contour may be subject to legal challenge as a taking of
property without just compensation in light of FAA and Caltrans' guidelines with respect
to land use compatibility and the lack of data supporting the application of the 55 dB
standard to an urban area such as San Luis Obispo. The LUCE update relies on the
approved Airport Master Plan and associated EIR to identify the noise contours
applicable to the community of San Luis Obispo.
Section 6.3 of the Compatibility Report uses the Airport Master Plan operational
forecasts to evaluate the existing and projected noise environment for the community.
The LUCE update and implementation through the Airport Overlay Zone apply the 60 dB
CNEL contour as the maximum acceptable noise exposure for new residential uses. This
complies with Table 4B in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook which
indicates that 60 dB is suitable for new development around most airports and that it is
particularly appropriate in mild climates where windows are often open.
83. Analysis of Finding 22:
(a) The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates and the associated Johnson Report are
inconsistent with the recommendations set forth in the Handbook, because they omit the
concept of normalization of airport noise contours. Section 4.2.3 of the Handbook
discusses in detail the concept of normalization of aviation noise exposure as a means of
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 117
Exhibit B
adjusting aviation noise standards and for determining and predicting expected
community reaction. The Handbook strongly encourages planning agencies to utilize the
normalization procedure when adopting noise compatibility standards for a particular
airport:
Over the years, planners have also found normalization to be a valuable tool for
establishing appropriate noise level limits for new noise - sensitive development in
the vicinity of an airport. This latter application of normalization is particularly
well- suited to airport land use planning (see Handbook, page 4 -4).
At the present time, normalization is the best method available for quantitatively
adjusting noise levels to account for local conditions in an effort to establish
appropriate noise limits for noise - sensitive land uses near airports (see Handbook,
page 4 -6).
ALUCs are encouraged to consider the normalization factors listed in Table 4A
when setting noise level limits for new noise - sensitive development in the vicinity
of an airport (see Handbook, page 4 -6).
Table 4B, which is referenced is Finding 22 above, includes the specific instruction that
"When setting criteria for a specific airport, other characteristics of the airport and its
environs also need to be considered. See Table 4A for normalization factors."
When the airport- related noise exposure levels of Table 4B are properly normalized for
SBP and its environs, the maximum permissible CNEL for those portions of the Airport
Planning Area where existing development is rural in nature (e.g., most of those portions
planning area that are under County jurisdiction, most of the portion of the planning area
included in the Airport Area Specific Plan, and some parts of the Margarita Area) is
found to be 45 to 50 dB. For those portions of the Planning Area where existing
development is suburban in nature (including most property within the City limits),
normalization reveals an appropriate maximum aviation - related noise level of 50 to 55
dB. In the interest of simplicity, uniformity, and clarity, the current ALUP applies the
least restrictive of these normalized criteria -the 55 dB CNEL noise contour - as the
maximum appropriate exposure for new noise - sensitive land uses.
Response 174: The Handbook concept of normalization indicates the commonly used baseline
criterion of 65 dB CNEL and makes adjustments to this baseline to address local conditions. For
example, a quiet rural area would subtract 10 dB from that baseline to arrive at noise contours to
fit the local setting. In San Luis Obispo, modifying adjustments include those associated with a
noisy urban residential community near relatively busy roads (add 5 dB onto baseline) and an
adjustment due to the community having had considerable previous exposure to intruding noise
and the noise - maker's relationship with the community is good (add another 5 dB onto baseline).
Subtractions from baseline would include impulsive tone or character present (minus 5 dB from
baseline). These normalization factors do not point to requiring a 55 dB noise contour and
instead point out that the City's use of 60 dB is more than adequate to address local conditions.
The ALUC is correct in pointing out that the LUCE and AOZ do not use the 55 dB contour to
limit noise sensitive uses, but rather carry the existing 60 dB CNEL limit on residential uses
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 118 Exhibit B
elsewhere in the City into the airport area. As described in subsequent responses, ambient noise
from state and federal highways in addition to rail traffic exceed this threshold in most locations
within the ALUP and implementing this standard would unduly limit new residential
development in the ALUP boundary.
(b) A regulatory action -is deemed a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment only if
the regulation "completely deprive(s] an owner of all economically beneficial use of her
property" (emphasis in original) (see Allegretti & Company v. County of Imperial (2006)
138 Cal.AppAth 1261, 1277 -78). If the regulatory action is not a per se taking, the
challenge is governed by an ad hoc factual inquiry (see id.). There is no set formula but
several factors have particular significance, including the economic impact on the
claimant and, particularly, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct
investment - backed expectations and the character of the government action (for instance
whether it amounts to a physical invasion or instead merely affects property interests
through "some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to
promote the common good ") (see id.). With respect to the per se regulatory takings
analysis, the ALUP allows for a wide variety of commercial, industrial, and agricultural
land uses within the 55 dB CNEL airport noise contour. Accordingly, the policies
contained within the ALUP do not amount to a per se taking. With respect to the ad hoc
regulatory takings analysis, it would be difficult to argue that the policies set forth within
the ALUP interfere with distinct investment - backed expectations given how long they
have been in effect (and their incorporation into the current LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance). In addition, the character of the government action (the protection of health
and safety consistent with the purposes of the SAA) does not support a takings claim.
Lastly, an argument could be made that an ALUP does not even constitute a "government
action" for purposes of a takings analysis.
Response 175: The law of taking is complex, evolving and always subject to a fact intensive
analysis and careful legal research. However, sweeping governmental regulation that
significantly reduces or eliminates the development potential or value of private property without
any basis in verifiable fact or data should be viewed as potentially suspect and subject to
challenge. Whether a particular claim might have merit is often a question that is only resolved
after lengthy and expensive litigation, which can and should most often be avoided by ensuring
that governmental decisions regarding land use are based on sound and verifiable factual
foundations.
(c) Finding 22 provides no evidence or argument that the LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance Updates will further the purpose of the SAA of minimizing "the public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the
extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," as compared to the
degree of protection from noise and safety hazards provided by the current ALUP.
Response 176: The provisions of PUC Section 21676(b) do not require the local agency to
establish more stringent standards than an ALUP in order to overrule. The recommendations in
the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE Update follow precisely the recommended
development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the
forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours presented in the EA /EIR, and guidance in
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 119 Exhibit B
the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land
use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 "provide for the orderly development of each public
use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals
and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to
prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare
by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that
minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public
airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
(d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 22 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 177: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxiii. Finding 23
84. Finding 23 provides as follows:
Despite a Public Records Act request of the ALUC and direct outreach to the original
consultant noted on Figures 1 and 2 in the existing ALUP, the ALUC has been unable to
produce the factual basis for the noise analysis and related technical assumptions
(projected numbers of operations, types of aircraft, time of day of operations) used to
create the noise contours used in the Existing ALUP. Noise contours shown in Figure 1
of the ALUP indicate contours are based on a hypothetical maximum runway capacity
which is inconsistent with Public Utility Code Section 21675(a) which requires that the
ALUP be based upon the most recent Airport Master Plan. Therefore, requiring
compatibility of the LUCE update and associated Airport Overlay Zone implementation
to the ALUP noise contours is not appropriate. The LUCE update and associated
implementation relies on the approved Airport Master Plan and associated EIR aircraft
operations forecast noise contours as those applicable to the community of San Luis
Obispo in compliance with the Public Utilities Code Section 21675(a) and the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Chapters 3 and 4.
85. Analysis of Finding 23:
(a) The text of PUC Section 21675(a) (as set forth in full in Paragraph 51 supra)
makes no reference to the "most recent" Airport Master Plan or an obligation on the part
of ALUCs to immediately update an existing ALUP upon adoption of an update to the
Airport Master Plan. Instead, PUC Section 21675(a) provides that the ALUC "shall
include and shall be based on a long -range master plan or airport layout plan, as
determined by [ Caltrans]" (emphasis added). In addition, the omission of any such
statutory obligation is noteworthy given the requirement contained within Government
Code Section 65302.3 that a local agency amend its general plan or any specific plan
within 180 days of any amendment to an ALUP. Based on discussions with Caltrans, it is
rarely the case that ALUPs are immediately updated upon adoption of an updated Airport
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 120
Exhibit B
Master Plan; and any such lag does not render the current ALUP invalid or incompliant
with PUC Section 21675(a).
Response 178: It is disingenuous for the ALUC to state that it is not required to base the ALUP
on the most recent AMP. PUC Section 21675 requires the ALUC to formulate a plan that
includes and is based upon the long range master plan or airport layout plan "that reflects the
anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years." When the AMP was adopted
the plan was intended to reflect the upcoming 20 years of anticipated growth. While it may be
rare that an ALUC immediately updates its plan after update of an AMP, it has been 8 -9 years
since the AMP was adopted and the EIR was certified, more than adequate time for the ALUC to
update the ALUP. The LUCE and associated AOZ are in compliance with the AMP unlike the
ALUP, so while being out of date does not invalidate an ALUP, it does present grave concerns
for the City to rely on it since it does not reflect or incorporate the AMP and associated
evaluation done through the EIR, and provides enough justification for the City to overrule.
(b) As discussed in Paragraph 77 supra, the current ALUP is based upon the Airport
Master Plan in effect at the time that the ALUP was formulated and adopted, and the
airport noise contours were obtained from that document. These contours do reflect "the
anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years."
Response 179: Only the AMP's associated EVEIR contains noise contours that reflect the
anticipated operational activity in the upcoming 20 years to support the FAA - approved ALP.
While the ALUP may reflect noise contours from a previous AMP, it states that noise contours
were associated with a 2001 Brown - Buntin study that is not available for public review. The
ALUC statement confirms that the ALUP is outdated and not reflective of the adopted AMP and
EVEIR.
(c) Finding 23 is incorrect in stating that the ALUC has failed to provide a factual
basis for the noise contours included in the current ALUP. The City has been informed
that the ALUP contours were adopted from the Environmental Impact Report for the
1998 Airport Master Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (Crawford
Multari & Clark Associates), which was current and in force at the time the ALUP was
revised and adopted. The Handbook specifically endorses airport master plans as a valid
source from which airport noise contours may be obtained (Handbook, pages 3 -7 and 3-
8).
Response 180: The ALUP does not reference the 1998 AMP but rather cites a 2001 Brown -
Buntin study and shows noise contours based on a theoretical maximum use of runways. This
does not meet PUC Section 21675.
(d) In an effort to achieve a degree of consistency between the City's General Plan
and the ALUP and allay the City's concerns about the origin of airport noise contours, the
ALUC offered to accept the City's Airport Noise Contours, as adopted and documented
in Figure 6, page 4 -17 of the Noise Element of the City's General Plan. Since the City
has previously accepted and adopted these contours, the ALUC presumes that the City is
satisfied with "the underlying assumptions or technical facts used to create the noise
contours provided."
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 121 Exhibit B
Response 181: The City did not offer to use the existing noise contours in the Noise Element of
the General Plan but rather recommended use of existing noise policies in the General Plan
which limit residential uses to areas within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour throughout the city.
The Noise Element map is being updated as part of the LUCE as an internal consistency
correction to reflect information from the Airport Master Plan.
(e) Based on the foregoing, Finding 23 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 182: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxiv. Finding 24
86. Finding 24 provides as follows:
Table 413, Noise Compatibility Criteria Alternatives (New Residential Land Uses) from
the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook establishes the three CNEL values
commonly used as the limit for acceptable residential noise exposure and their
applicability. On Page 4 -7, the Handbook states that areas with a noise level of 60 dB
CNEL are "suitable for new residential development around most airports" and
"particularly appropriate in mild climates where windows are often open."
87. Analysis of Finding 24:
(a) Finding 24 appears to merely restate the reference to Table 4B of the Handbook
contained in Handbook and in a manner that fails to convey the actual recommendations
set forth therein. Specifically, Finding 24 fails to mention the strong recommendation for
normalization of CNEL contours included on pages 4 -4 through 4 -6 of the Handbook and
fails to note that Table 4B itself indicates "When setting criteria for a specific airport,
other characteristics of the airport and its environs also need to be considered. See Table
4A for normalization factors." Collective application of the recommendations included in
the Handbook (including normalization) supports the 55 dB CNEL contour, rather than
the 60 dB contour, as the appropriate criterion for maximal noise exposure for noise-
sensitive land uses in the vicinity of SBP.
Response 183: The ALUC response misstates the Handbook adjustments for normalization that
would apply to the City of San Luis Obispo. The Handbook concept of normalization indicates
the commonly used baseline criterion of 65 dB CNEL and makes adjustments to this baseline to
address local conditions. For example, a quiet rural area would subtract 10 dB from that baseline
to arrive at noise contours to fit the local setting. In San Luis Obispo, modifying adjustments
include those associated with a noisy urban residential community near relatively busy roads
(add 5 dB onto baseline) and an adjustment due to the community having had considerable
previous exposure to intruding noise and the noise - maker's relationship with the community is
good (add another 5 dB onto baseline). Subtractions from baseline would include impulsive tone
or character present (minus 5 dB from baseline). These normalization factors do not point to
requiring a 55 dB noise contour and instead point out that the City's use of 60 dB is adequate to
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 122 Exhibit B
address local conditions. The ALUC is correct in pointing out that the LUCE and AOZ do not
use the 55 dB contour to limit noise sensitive uses, but rather references the 60 dB CNEL limit
consistent with its application throughout the city. As described in subsequent responses,
ambient noise from state and federal highways in addition to rail traffic exceed this threshold in
most locations within the ALUP and implementing this standard would unduly limit new
residential development in the ALUP boundary.
(b) Finding 24 provides no evidence or argument that adoption of the either the 65 dB
CNEL airport noise contour advocated by the Johnson Report or the 60 dB CNEL airport
noise contour advocated by draft proposed LUCE will "minimize the public's exposure to
excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that
these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," as effectively as the 55 dB
CNEL noise contours included in the current ALUP.
Response 184: Establishing a 55 dB CNEL noise contour may be appropriate for the rural
portions of the county where ambient noise levels may actually support such a contour.
However, this noise contour is not reasonable in a community where ambient noise levels from
existing state and federal highways and rail traffic already exceed this standard. This standard
would unduly restrict new residential uses in the City areas within the ALUP boundaries. Since
the 60 dB CNEL noise standard is used elsewhere in the City, it is not reasonable to set a more
restrictive standard in the ALUP area where community already has an expectation of noise. The
60 dB noise standard does not expose the public to excessive noise.
(c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 24 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 185: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxv. Finding 25
88. Finding 25 provides as follows:
The City's proposed airport noise standard for new residential uses is 60 dB CNEL,
consistent with the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook recommendations for
urban areas as shown on page 4 -8 in Figure 4A. The Handbook shows 60 dB CNEL as a
typical setting for urban low- density residential uses. Further, the City's proposed noise
standard is based upon verified and validated noise contours from the County- approved
Airport Master Plan EIR using the FAA's latest version of the Integrated Noise Model
(INM). ) (See Airport Compatibility Report Section 6, Airport Noise, Pages 42 -52).
89. Analysis of Finding 25:
(a) Finding 25 is repetitious of both Finding 22 and Finding 24 and the ALUC hereby
incorporates its comments to Finding 22 and Finding 24 in its response to Finding 25.
Response 186: This is a statement of approach to response. Noted.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 123
Exhibit B
(b) As previously noted, the City's approach is flawed, because it does not conform
with the recommendations set forth in the Handbook (including the recommendation
regarding normalization) and because the espoused airport noise contours fail to depict
the 55 dB CNEL contour and are associated with an aviation activity forecast that extends
only to the year 2023.
Response 187: The ALUC references several criteria in this response: normalization, failure to
depict the 55 dB contour, and the AMP forecast citing the year 2023 as its future year. The
Handbook concept of normalization indicates the commonly used baseline criterion of 65 dB
CNEL and makes adjustments to this baseline to address local conditions. For example, a quiet
rural area would subtract 10 dB from that baseline to arrive at noise contours to fit the local
setting. In San Luis Obispo, modifying adjustments include those associated with a noisy urban
residential community near relatively busy roads (add 5 dB onto baseline) and an adjustment due
to the community having had considerable previous exposure to intruding noise and the noise-
maker's relationship with the community is good (add another 5 dB onto baseline). Subtractions
from baseline would include impulsive tone or character present (minus 5 dB from baseline).
These normalization factors do not point to requiring a 55 dB noise contour and instead point out
that the City's use of 60 dB CNEL is adequate to address local conditions. The ALUC is correct
in pointing out that the LUCE and AOZ do not use the 55 dB contour to limit noise sensitive
uses, but rather applies the 60 dB CNEL contour consistent with its use throughout the rest of the
city. As described in subsequent responses, ambient noise from state and federal highways in
addition to rail traffic exceed this threshold in most locations within the ALUP and implementing
this standard would unduly limit new residential development in the ALUP boundary. Finally,
the fact that the AMP forecast operations to the year 2023 does not preclude its use as a
reasonable projection of long term operations and associated noise impacts. As described in
subsequent responses, the activity forecast in the AMP has not materialized and current
operations are roughly half of what they were when the AMP was developed, thereby indicating
it is still adequate for long term projection of operations and associated noise.
(c) Finding 25 provides no evidence or argument that adoption of either the 65 dB
CNEL airport noise contour advocated by the Johnson Report or the 60 dB CNEL airport
noise contour advocated by the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates "minimize the
public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public
airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," as
effectively as the 55 dB CNEL noise contour included in the current ALUP. On the
contrary, if enacted, the provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would
increase the public's exposure to airport- related noise when compared to the provisions of
the current ALUP.
Response 188: Establishing a 55 dB CNEL noise contour may be appropriate for the rural
portions of the county where ambient noise levels may actually support such a contour.
However, this noise contour is not reasonable in a community where ambient noise levels from
existing state and federal highways and rail traffic already exceed this standard. This standard
would unduly limit new residential uses in the City areas within the ALUP boundaries. Since the
60 dB CNEL noise standard is used elsewhere in the City, it is not reasonable to set a more
restrictive standard in the ALUP area where the community already has an expectation of noise:
the 60 dB CNEL noise standard does not increase the public's exposure to excessive noise.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 124
Exhibit B
(d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 25 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 189: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxvi. Finding 26
90. Finding 26 provides as follows:
The aircraft noise analysis prepared for the Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact
Report is documented in Chapter 5 of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The assumptions
regarding aircraft operations amounts, types, spatial and temporal distribution is reflected
in Figure 5.1 -6 of the AMP EIR. The AMP EIR operations assumptions were entered into
the Integrated Noise Model version 7.Od and generated noise contours that were
compared to the AMP EIR on page 52 of the Compatibility Report. The resultant noise
contours confirmed the AMP EIR information as an accurate mapping of the long term
noise impact of the airport's aviation activity that is tied to the ultimate facilities
development depicted in the FAA - approved Airport Layout Plan. The City's use of the
Airport Master Plan noise contours for purposes of development of its LUCE Update
noise contours and the application of a 60 dB CNEL exterior noise standard and 45 dB
CNEL interior noise standard for new residential uses is appropriate and is consistent
with FAA and State aircraft noise planning standards (Handbook, Page 4 -46).
91. Analysis of Finding 26:
(a) Finding 26 is repetitious of Finding 22, Finding 24, and Finding 25, and the
ALUC hereby incorporates its comments to Finding 22, Finding 24 and Finding 25 in its
response to Finding 26.
Response 190: This is a statement of approach to response. Noted.
(b) Finding 26 is flawed, because there is no documentation that the modeling of
noise contours associated with the Johnson Report was performed by any firm or
individual with demonstrated expertise in acoustic analysis.
Response 191: The Johnson Report documents that noise contours were generated by entering
the data points of aircraft types, time of day of operations, and forecast operations numbers into
the latest INM model (Version 7.0d). The model output matches that of the AMP EIR.
Regardless of the ALUC's question of acoustic analysis qualifications, the LUCE update and
AOZ implementation reflect the AMP EIR noise analysis which ostensibly would overcome the
ALUC's objection.
(c) Finding 26 provides no evidence or argument that adoption of the either the 65 dB
CNEL airport noise contour advocated by the Johnson Report or the 60 dB CNEL airport
noise contour advocated by the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will "minimize the
public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 125
Exhibit B
airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," as
effectively as the 55 dB CNEL noise contour included in the current ALUP.
Response 192: Establishing a 55 dB CNEL noise contour may be appropriate for the rural
portions of the county where ambient noise levels may actually support such a contour.
However, this noise contour is not reasonable in a community where ambient noise levels from
existing state and federal highways and rail traffic already exceed this standard. This standard
would unduly limit new residential uses in the City within the ALUP boundaries and would
establish a more restrictive noise standard in the airport area (55 dB CNEL versus the 60 dB
CNEL allowed elsewhere in the city) where there is already a community expectation of noise.
(d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 26 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 193: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxvii. Finding 27
92. Finding 27 provides as follows:
The aircraft noise analysis prepared for the SBP Master Plan Update in the 2006 EA /EIR
provides an accurate mapping (See Airport Compatibility Report, Pages 51 -52) of the
long term noise impact of the Airport's aviation activity that is tied to the ultimate
facilities development depicted in the FAA - approved ALP. The City's use of the Airport
Master Plan noise contours for purposes of development of its LUCE Update noise
contours and the application of a 60 dB CNEL exterior noise standard and 45 dB CNEL
interior noise standard for new residential uses is appropriate and is consistent with FAA
and State aircraft noise planning standards (Handbook, Page 4 -46). The SBP EA/EIR
found no existing or planned noise impact on the surrounding community as a result of
the full build out of the Airport. The ALUP noise contours are not based on the SBP
Master Plan forecast operations but rather on a theoretical "capacity" of the runways with
no connection to the underlying demand or proven usage characteristics of the runways,
resulting in an unrealistic and vastly over - stated noise impact. The City's LUCE is
appropriately based on the SBP Master Plan forecast operations with all of the facts and
assumptions clearly available in the SBP EA/EIR for objective review. The ALUC does
not present the underlying assumptions or technical facts used to create the noise
contours provided in the ALUP, and have not been able to make this information
available for review. The LUCE update and associated implementation relies on the
approved Airport Master Plan and associated EIR aircraft operations forecast noise
contours as those applicable to the community of San Luis Obispo in compliance with the
Public Utilities Code §21675(a) and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
Chapters 3 and 4.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 126
93. Analysis of Finding 27:
Exhibit B
(a) Finding 27 is repetitious of Finding 22, Finding 24, Finding 25 and Finding 26,
and the ALUC hereby incorporates its comments to Finding 22, Finding 24, Finding 25
and Finding 26 in response to Finding 27.
Response 194: This is a statement of approach to response. Noted.
(b) Finding 27 provides no evidence or argument that adoption of the either the 65 dB
CNEL airport noise contour advocated by the Johnson Report or the 60 dB CNEL airport
noise contour advocated by the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will "minimize the
public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public
airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," as
effectively as the 55 dB CNEL noise contour included in the current ALUP.
Response 195: Establishing a 55 dB CNEL noise contour may be appropriate for the rural
portions of the county where ambient noise levels may actually support such a contour.
However, this noise contour is not reasonable for a community where ambient noise levels from
existing state and federal highways and rail traffic already exceed this standard. This standard
would unduly limit new residential uses in the City within the ALUP boundaries and would
establish a more restrictive noise standard in the airport area (55 dB CNEL versus the 60 dB
CNEL allowed elsewhere in the city) where there is already a community expectation of noise..
The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in aeronautics and
aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics
administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for conducting
airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land Use
Commissions, PUC Sections 21670 - 21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
(c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 27 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 196: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxviii. Finding 28.
94. Finding 28 provides as follows:
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 127
Exhibit B
The ALUP noise contours are not based on the SBP master plan forecast but rather on a
theoretical "capacity" of the runways with no connection to the underlying demand or
proven usage characteristics of the usage characteristics of the runway, resulting in
unrealistic and vastly over - stated noise impact. The City's LUCE is appropriately based
on the master plan forecast operations with all of the facts and assumptions clearly
available. The ALUP does not present the underlying assumptions or technical facts used
to create the noise contours provided in the ALUP and have not been able to make this
information available for review. The LUCE update and associated implementation
relies on the approved Airport Master Plan and associated EIR aircraft operations forecast
as those applicable to the community of San Luis Obispo in compliance with the Public
Utilities Code §21675(a) and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
95. Analysis of Finding 28:
(a) As discussed in Paragraph 85 supra, the airport noise contours utilized in the
current ALUP were adopted from the EIR for the Airport Master Plan which was valid
and in effect at the time that the ALUP was amended. The EIR was prepared by the well -
respected firm of Crawford Multari & Clark Associates and the noise contours were
constructed by Brown Buntin & Associates. Thus, the source of the airport noise
contours is consistent with the SAA and the Handbook (page 3 -7 and 3 -8).
Response 197: The Airport Master Plan has more recently been updated than the ALUP and
therefore the ALUP does not reflect the adopted AMP. In addition, the noise study cited in the
ALUP (Brown - Buntin) cannot be located despite a public records act request from the City to the
County or in response to a direct request to Brown - Buntin. The ALUP references the theoretical
maximum use of the runways as the assumption behind the noise contours rather than reliance on
information generated through the current Airport Master Plan and associated EIR. It is not
accurate to state that the ALUP uses the AMP as the source of information for noise because the
AMP has changed.
(b) The ALUP did not develop or sponsor the generation of airport noise contours
contained in the Airport Master Plan EIR. If the City is desirous of additional technical
details it should look to the sponsoring agency or to the firms involved in constructing the
contours.
Response 198: The City has access to the current AMP documentation provided through the
associated EIR and has used this information to understand potential long term noise impacts
associated with future aircraft operations. The ALUP does not include this information nor is it
based upon the most current AMP or FAA - approved ALP.
(c) As discussed in Paragraph 85 supra, the ALUC has offered to accept the City's
Airport Noise Contours, as adopted and documented in Figure 6, page 4 -17 of the Noise
Element of the City's General Plan.
Response 199: The City did not offer to use the existing noise contours in the Noise Element of
the General Plan but rather recommended use of existing noise policies in the General Plan
which limit residential uses to areas within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour. The Noise Element
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 128 Exhibit B
map is being updated as part of the LUCE as an internal consistency correction to reflect
information from the Airport Master Plan.
(d) Finding 28 mischaracterizes the requirements of PUC Section 21675(a) and the
recommendations set forth in the Handbook by implying that an ALUP must include
noise contours which are based upon an airport master plan activity forecast. No such
requirements can be found within the actual text of PUC Section 21675(a) which
provides as follows in pertinent part:
The commission's airport land use compatibility plan shall include and shall be
based on a long -range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the
Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation that reflects the
anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years.
Similarly, the Handbook lists five (5) "potential sources of noise contours" and
provides that "Airport Master Plans are one of the preferred" sources for [ ... ] noise
contours" (emphasis added) (Handbook, page 3 -7). In addition, the Handbook
places no constraints on the methodology or planning horizon used in creating
airport noise contours that are incorporated into airport land use compatibility
plans, other than to require that they should reflect expected activity at the airport
for a minimum of twenty (20) years into the future. It is of note that airport land
use plans are Not required to include airport noise contours at all. The Handbook
also endorses, as an alternative, the construction of composite zones and
development criteria which combine safety, noise, and overflight factors in a
single set of compatibility zones.
Response 200: Caltrans staff has indicated the noise contours need to be based on the AMP as
reflected in PUC section 21675(a) cited by the ALUC. The Handbook reflects this requirement
and expands the sources of noise information as follows: Airport Master Plans (the ALUP does
not reflect the most recent AMP EIR noise contours whereas the City's approach follows the
AMP EIR); Noise Elements of General Plans provided they are similar to noise contours form
airport master plans (City's Noise Element map is being updated as part of the LUCE as an
internal consistency correction to reflect information from the Airport Master Plan);
Environmental documents with development or master plan (AMP EIR provides noise contours);
FAR Part 150 studies (current and five year projected noise contours which the Handbook states
are not sufficient for more than five year time frame unless impacts are anticipated to decrease);
and AICUZ studies conducted by the Department of Defense for military facilities (SBP is not a
military facility). Of these five sources, the AMP EIR is the most applicable to use for
understanding potential long term noise impacts. While the Handbook does include a reference
to "composite criteria" for purposes of land use compatibility, it also notes major disadvantages
to this approach including basis for location of the zone boundaries not being clear. It further
notes that "if more detailed assessment of a complex land use development proposal is
necessary, reference to separate noise and safety compatibility tables and maps is often still
required." (Handbook section 3.3.1 pages 3- 37 -38).
(e) In contrast, the Johnson Report and the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates are
inconsistent with PUC Section 21675(a), since they are based upon the 2005 Airport
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 129
Exhibit B
Master Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, which reflects the
anticipated growth of the airport only through the year 2023.
Response 201: The Johnson Aviation report relies on the AMP EIR for noise contours in
compliance with PUC Section 21675(a) and guidance in the Handbook. The AMP projections
adequately represent a long term forecast for purposes of potential land use impacts because the
trends predicted in the AMP have not come to fruition. The total aviation activity in 2012 was
66% lower than the AMP forecast for the same year and the gap grew larger in 2013. While it is
plausible that at some point in its future SBP may reach the 140,050 total operations forecast in
the AMP, it is uncertain when that threshold will be reached. Since current operations are
roughly half of those reflected when the AMP was adopted, projecting the AMP total operations
into the future still represents an aggressive estimate of future operations and a conservative
approach to land use planning despite the 2023 forecast year used in the AMP.
(f) Finding 28 provides no evidence or argument that adoption of the either the 65 dB
CNEL airport noise contour advocated by the Johnson Report or the 60 dB CNEL airport
noise contour advocated by the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates will "minimize the
public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public
airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses," as
effectively as the 55 dB CNEL noise contours included in the current ALUP.
Response 202: Establishing a 55 dB CNEL noise contour may be appropriate for the rural
portions of the county where ambient noise levels may actually support such a contour.
However, this noise contour is not reasonable in a community where ambient noise levels from
existing state and federal highways and rail traffic already exceed this standard. This standard
would unduly limit new residential uses in the City areas within the ALUP boundaries and would
establish a more restrictive noise standard in the airport area (55 dB CNEL versus the 60 dB
CNEL allowed elsewhere in the city) where there is already a community expectation of noise..
(g) Based on the foregoing, Finding 28 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 203: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxix. Finding 29
96. Finding 29 provides as follows:
Seventy -five percent (75 %) of all aircraft noise complaints collected by County Airport
officials over the last five (5) years are generated by three (3) individuals as provided in a
report by the ALUC to the City of San Luis Obispo.
Response 204: This is a statement of fact based on noise complaint data provided to the City by
County airport staff in response to a public records act request.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 130
97. Analysis of Finding 29:
Exhibit B
(a) Between January 1, 2009 and May 31, 2013, staff at SBP received 1,651
complaints regarding airport noise and overflight.
Response 205: The City of San Luis Obispo requested and received noise complaint information
from the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport to fully assess the level of community concern with
airport- related, aircraft noise.
As shown in Table 6 -2, Noise Complaints at SBP, from the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Report, seventy -five percent of all aircraft noise complaints collected by County Airport officials
over the last five years have been generated by three individuals.
This is not meant to minimize noise impacts associated with aircraft operations but rather to
consider complaints received in context to determine whether it is a pervasive community -wide
issue or an annoyance to a limited few. This information appears to support the idea that there
are a few individuals for whom aircraft noise is a particular annoyance; not that aircraft noise
causes issues for a large segment of the population.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document. -3 — Noise Complaints at SBP
Noise Complaint Origin:
Noise Complaint:
Percent of
Total
Cumulative
Percent
Caller #
Engine Runups
Low Flying
'Noise
Other _
Overfli ht
Grand Total
Caller #101
3
237
7
477
724
41.1%
41.1%
Caller #36
1
231
185
4
49
470
26.7%
67.8%
Caller #15
44
10
2
69
125
7.1%
74.9%
Caller #83
5
341
31
701
4.0%
78.9%
Caller #67
2
18
38
581
3.3%
82.2%
Caller #98
1
2
1
33
37
2.1%
84.3%
Caller #56
3
16
19
1.1%
85.4%
Caller #93
5
3
13
19
1.1%
86.5%
Caller #40
1
3
8
12
0.7%
87.2%
Caller #95
11
5
5
12
0.7%1
87.8%
[Caller #94
3
71
10
0.6%1
88.4%
(b) Virtually all of the noise complaints arose from residences located outside the 60
dB airport noise contour proposed by the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update as the
criterion for prohibiting new noise - sensitive development. This indicates that the LUCE
and Zoning Ordinance Update would be ineffective in minimizing the public's exposure
to excessive noise.
Response 206: This statement is not accurate. Experience at many airports has shown that
noise - related concerns do not stop at the boundary of the CNEL contour because many people
are sensitive to the frequent presence of aircraft overhead even at low noise levels. These
reactions, however, are not because of exposure to excessive noise; rather, these reactions can
mostly be expressed in the form of annoyance. While these impacts are important community
concerns, the question of importance here is whether any land use planning actions can be taken
to avoid or mitigate the impacts or otherwise address the concerns. Commonly, when overflight
impacts are a discussion in a community, the focus is on modification of flight routes. Indeed,
many believe that overflight impacts should be addressed solely through the aviation side of the
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 131 Exhibit B
equation. Certainly, land use measures that would prevent residential development anywhere
within the area of annoyance would be excessive and not appropriate. Rather, notification
measures are more appropriate.
The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in aeronautics and
aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics
administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for conducting
airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land Use
Commissions, PUC Sections 21670 - 21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
(c) The number of noise complaints recorded greatly underestimates the actual
number of persons who are disturbed by airport- related noise, as most such persons are
unaware of the procedure for recording a complaint.
Response 207: This comment is speculative in nature.
(d) The percentage of persons who will be highly annoyed by aircraft noise increases
exponentially with increasing Ldn (see Hansell, AL. BMJ 2013:6432 doi:
10.1136/bmj15432). At an Ldn of 65 dB, twenty seven percent (27 %) of the population
will be highly annoyed and at 60 dB almost nineteen percent (19 %) will be so affected.
When the Ldn drops to 55 dB, only about twelve percent (12 %) of the population is
highly annoyed and at 50 dB, the percentage is approximately six percent (6 %).
Response 208: There have been many studies of airport and aircraft noise sensitivity and the
level of subjective human response to noise. For at least the last 24 years, the California Airport
Noise Standard has been set in state law at 65 dB CNEL (Title 21, California Code of
Regulations, Section 5000, et seq). The City has set its own noise limit within the City at 60 dB
CNEL. No new residential development is planned within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour as
developed for the Airport Master Plan EIR.
(e) Adoption of the 60 dB CNEL noise contour proposed by the LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance Updates would be less effective than the current ALUP at minimizing the
public's exposure to airport noise impacts and would be in conflict with the purposes of
the SAA.
Response 209: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670 - 21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 132 Exhibit B
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning. The LUCE and
AOZ conform with guidance in the Handbook and the AMP.
(f) Finding 29 does not speak to the question of whether the LUCE and Zoning
Ordinance Updates minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards.
It is not, therefore, relevant to the requirements imposed upon a local agency that seeks to
overrule the decision of an ALUC under PUC Sections 21675(a) and 21670.
Response 210: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670 - 21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning. The LUCE and
AOZ conform with guidance in the Handbook and the AMP.
g) Based on the foregoing, Finding 29 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 211: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxx. Finding 30
98. Finding 98 provides as follows:
The San Luis Obispo Regional Airport is not included in the list of ten "Noise Problem"
Airports in California as defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section
5000, et seq.
99. Analysis of Finding 98:
(a) The fact that SBP has not been designated as a "Noise Problem" airport indicates
the effectiveness of the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to excessive
airport noise and fulfilling the purposes of the SAA.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 133 Exhibit B
Response 212: There is not a causal relationship between the fact that SBP has not been
designated a "noise problem" airport and purported effectiveness of the ALUP in minimizing the
public's exposure to excessive noise. Data from County airport staff indicates that 75% of
airport noise complaints over the last five years was generated by three individuals. The City of
San Luis Obispo is an urban setting with federal and state highways and rail traffic traversing the
City. Community expectations are affected by ambient noise levels and aviation activity is just
one aspect of the active environment. The LUCE and AOZ are consistent with guidance in the
Handbook and with noise contours in the 2006 EA /EIR which assesses impacts of the AMP and
FAA - approved ALP, a long term view of operations and ultimate development at the airport.
(b) Finding 30 presents no evidence that adoption of the recommendations of the
Johnson Report or the provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would be
as effective as the ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to excessive noise and
safety hazards.
Response 213: Unlike the ALUP, the Johnson Report uses the Airport Master Plan and
associated EIR as a reasonable projection of long term aviation activity that may impact land
uses. The LUCE update and implementation through the AOZ set a standard of 60 dB CNEL
exterior and 45 dB CNEL interior noise standards for noise - sensitive uses — a standard found
"suitable for new development around most airports. Particularly appropriate in mild climates
where windows are often open. "4 The State Aeronautics Act does not require the overrule to
comply with the ALUP's method of addressing noise and safety concerns but rather leaves the
land use authority with the local agency provided the public health, safety, and welfare is
protected and the land use measures minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and
safety hazards within areas around public airports.
(c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 30 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 214: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxxi. Finding 31
100. Finding 31 provides as follows:
The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors have [sic] not applied to the state to
have SBP defined as a "Noise Problem" Airport in California as defined in the California
Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 5000 et seq.
101. Analysis of Finding 31:
4 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, Table 46, page 4 -7
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 134
Exhibit B
(a) The fact that the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors has not applied to
the state to have SBP designated as a "Noise Problem" airport indicates the effectiveness
of the current ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to excessive airport noise and
fulfilling the purposes of the SAA.
Response 215: There is not a causal relationship between the fact that SBP has not been
designated a "noise problem" airport and purported effectiveness of the ALUP in minimizing the
public's exposure to excessive noise. Data from County airport staff indicates that 75% of
airport noise complaints over the last five years was generated by three individuals. The City of
San Luis Obispo is an urban setting with federal and state highways and rail traffic traversing the
City. Community expectations are affected by ambient noise levels and aviation activity is just
one aspect of the active environment. The LUCE and AOZ are consistent with guidance in the
Handbook and with noise contours in the AMP, a long term view of operations and associated
noise contours.
(b) Finding 31 presents no evidence that adoption of the recommendations of the
Johnson Report or the provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would be
as effective as the ALUP in minimizing the public's exposure to excessive noise and
safety hazards.
Response 216: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670 - 21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning. The LUCE and
AOZ conform with guidance in the Handbook and the AMP.
(c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 31 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 217: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxxii. Finding 32
102. Finding 32 provides as follows:
Review processes and height restrictions supported through the LUCE and Airport
Overlay Zone require compliance with FAA Part 77 criteria. Therefore, the Draft LUCE
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 135
Exhibit B
update and associated implementation through an Airport Overlay Zone which reflect the
Handbook guidance for the most recent Airport Master Plan will not impact the Airport's
ability to qualify for payments from the Aeronautics Account to support airport
development as stated in PUC Section 21659.
103. Analysis of Finding 32:
(a) The current ALUP prohibits any "structure, landscaping, apparatus, or other
feature that extends more than 200 feet above ground level or more than 409 feet above
mean sea level (whichever is greater) or any imaginary surface established under Section
77.25 or 77.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Response 218: The AOZ refers to the ALUP for purposes of airspace protection and provides a
summary of FAR part 77 requirements as well as information related to objects affecting
navigable airspace and other flight hazards.
(b) Finding 32 does not speak to the purposes of the SAA, as set forth in PUC Section
21670 and does not demonstrate that the draft LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates
would minimize the exposure of the public to airport noise and safety hazards, as
compared to the current ALUP.
Response 219: The AOZ refers to the ALUP for purposes of airspace protection and provides a
summary of FAR part 77 requirements as well as information related to objects affecting
navigable airspace and other flight hazards.
(c) The section of the PUC that specifies adequate height restrictions as a condition
for receiving payments from the Aeronautics Account is Section 21688(a), not 21659.
Response 220: Correction of the PUC section 21688(a) noted. PUC 21659 refers to FAR Part
77 prohibitions.
(d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 32 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 221: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxxiii. Finding 33
104. Finding 33 provides as follows:
The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook uses Runway Protection Zones
(RPZs) and certain Part 77 surfaces to help delineate recommended airspace protection
zones around airports. The Draft LUCE update and associated implementation through an
Airport Overlay Zone incorporate compliance with Part 77 surfaces and other
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 136
Exhibit B
requirements to address potential obstructions near the airport. Public Utilities Code
§21403(c) provides the right of aircraft to safe access to public airports including the
right of flight within the zone of approach without hazard. This zone of approach shall
conform to Part 77 regulations which are incorporated into the LUCE and Airport
Overlay Zone.
105. Analysis of Finding 33:
(a) Finding 33 does not speak to the purposes of the SAA, as set forth in PUC Section
21670 and does not demonstrate that the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would
minimize the exposure of the public to airport noise and safety hazards, as compared to
the current ALUP. It is not, therefore, relevant to the City's proposal to overrule the
decision of the ALUC.
Response 222: The LUCE and AOZ defer to the ALUP and FAA for land uses in areas in the
RPZ and S -la safety zones. No overrule in this area is proposed.
(b) Based on the foregoing, Finding 33 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 223: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxxiv. Finding 34
106. Finding 34 provides as follows:
Safety provisions to address aircraft in distress as specified in the Handbook's
"Guidelines for Extent of Open Land Near Airports" criteria (beginning on Page 4 -31 of
the Handbook) is addressed in the Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.050. This section
calls out open land areas already planned for and secured in addition to open land
objectives for the overlay zones that comply with those listed on page 4 -31 and 32 of the
Handbook.
107. Analysis of Finding 34:
(a) The current ALUP establishes adequate and appropriate open space within the
airport land use planning area through the mechanism of an Airport Compatible Open
Space Plan (ACOS). The ACOS is developed by a local agency and reviewed and
approved by the ALUC. The ALUP provides for additional density of development in
most aviation safety areas on properties that are encompassed by an ACOS. Evaluation
and approval of the ACOS ensures that the location, size, orientation, and topography of
each open space is adequate to allow its ready identification by the pilot of an aircraft in
distress and to provide a usable alternative to an off - airport landing in developed
neighborhoods.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 137 Exhibit B
Response 224: Four of the ACOS areas provide for additional density in the AASP and the
MASP specific plan areas. The Airport Overlay Zone does not apply to areas previously found
consistent by the ALUC with the ALUP. LUCE update includes a policy to maintain open areas
as part of the AASP and a policy to obtain open space uses outside of the urban reserve line. The
implementing AOZ codifies a previously endorsed Airport Compatible Open Space (ACOS)
Plan to reflect five of the ACOS areas approved by the ALUC as well as a requirement to seek
additional open land areas as part of discretionary land use approvals for projects within the
ALUP boundaries. The two areas subject to future specific plans, Avila Ranch and San Luis
Ranch, have ACOS areas identified and endorsed by the ALUC that will be incorporated in the
development proposals referred to the ALUC for subsequent review. Only one other major
development area is proposed as part of the LUCE, the Madonna at Los Osos Valley Road, and
while it will include a significant amount of open space, the site is primarily in Safety Zone 2
and is comprised of steep hillsides, unsuitable for a designated ACOS area. Additional language
has been incorporated into the AOZ to reflect ALUP direction for size, orientation and
topography for future ACOS areas.
(b) In contrast, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates provide no mechanism for
the review or evaluation of proposed open space areas by any group with expertise in
aviation. This deficiency is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the SAA to "minimize
the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public
airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
Response 225: The AOZ has incorporated additional language to reflect ALUP direction for
size, orientation and topography for future ACOS areas. To the extent that the ALUP is
consistent with the stated purpose of the State Aeronautics Act, so is the LUCE and the
associated implementation.
(c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 34 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 2I °676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 226: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxxv. Finding 35
108. Finding 35 provides as follows:
The instrument procedures at SBP are found in the Airport Master Plan beginning on
Page 1 -14 provide straight -in final approaches to Runway 11 and Runway 29 with
vertical guidance for pilots flying in instrument weather conditions creating the safest
approach possible and avoiding the need to use circling approaches (See Page 51 of 65
Airport Land Use Compatibility Report, Page 27 and Handbook, Page 3 -22). Since no
adjustments to flight routes have been identified for the airport, the configuration and use
limitations associated with the Handbook - defined safety zones is adequate for the San
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 138
Exhibit B
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. Airport Overlay Zone Chapter 17.57 identifies
overlay zones 1- 6 and associated land use standards that are consistent with Chapter 4 of
the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook safety zones 1 -6 and land use
limitations.
109. Analysis of Finding 35:
(a) Although straight -in instrument approaches are available for Runways 11 and 29
and a straight -out departure is available for Runway 29, there are also three (3) additional
instrument procedures that are not aligned with runways. In formulating the current
ALUP, the ALUC considered these arrivals and departures and ensured that the airport's
safety zones were appropriate to accommodate them. Failure to adequately consider
local factors that affect aircraft operations is a major deficiency in the Johnson Report
and the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates with respect to compliance with the
Handbook requirements and the purposes of the SAA.
Response 227: All local factors and operating procedures have been taken into account in
reviewing and assessing any additional safety risk posed to flight operations. Handbook Table
3A: Safety Zone Adjustment Factors (Airport Operational Variables) provides these operational
factors for evaluation of any additional safety risk that they may introduce into the
operation. Specifically, "Non- Precision Approaches Not Aligned with the Runway" is the
category suggested here by the ALUC. This category does not address instrument departures as
suggested by the ALUC. Further, the specific risk factor here are approaches not aligned with a
runway that transition to the runway at low altitude. The only non - precision instrument
approach not aligned with a runway end is the VOR or TACAN -A approach. As stated
previously, this approach has a minimum descent altitude of 1700 feet above mean sea
level. This altitude is the traffic pattern altitude for high performance aircraft. This approach
simply allows aircraft to reach the vicinity of the airport where they can enter the traffic pattern
to land in visual conditions. There is no low altitude operations or additional risk factors from
normal visual operations and thereby no additional risk factor consideration for this approach on
safety zones.
(b) Finding 35 is incorrect in asserting that the straight -in approaches to Runway 11
and 29 avoid the need to use circling approaches. Although a straight -in instrument
approach is theoretically available for Runway 11, prevailing winds at SBP frequently
render landing on Runway 11 unsafe and require pilots approaching the airport from the
north to circle- to -land on Runway 29.
Response 228: As stated previously, there is no use for this procedure because there is a safer
straight -in, non - precision instrument approach to both runway ends. There is an available
approach transition over KIKII and CREPE intersection/approach fixes from the north of the
airport to provide the safest possible instrument transition to a straight -in arrival to Runway 29.
(c) Finding 35 is incorrect and deceptive in suggesting that the generic safety zones
depicted in the Handbook are "recommended." The Handbook itself indicates very
clearly that this is not the case:
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 139
Exhibit B
The generic safety zones presented in the preceding section are intended just as a
starting place for the development of zones appropriate for a particular airport. In
some cases, the zones might be quite suitable as is. In most instances, however,
some degree of adjustment of the generic zones is necessary in recognition of the
physical and operational characteristics of the airport (see Handbook, page 3 -20).
Various other aeronautical factors that may warrant adjustments to the sizes or
shapes of the generic zones are listed in Table 3A. Some of these factors relate to
the configuration of the runways. Others are dictated by the way the runways are
used.
Among the adjustment factors noted in Table 3A below are the peculiarities of the
flight routes normally flown at a particular airport. While this factor is relevant
and should be considered, it is also essential to recognize that the route followed
by an aircraft when in distress may not be a normal route. Aircraft accidents can
occur in places seldom overflown by aircraft.
Several other factors deserve consideration when defining safety zones. These
factors involve characteristics of the airport environs (see Handbook, page 3 -21).
Response 229: The ALUP does not specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table
3A of the Handbook. There is no discussion of how topography, geography, special flight
procedures, special purpose aircraft, small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing
thresholds (something that is being corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the
safety zones recommended in the Handbook. For the ALUP's S -2 safety zone, the ALUP
discusses the circle -to -land instrument approaches south of Runway 11 -29 as a consideration,
however, the circling minimum altitudes for these procedures are at standard traffic pattern
altitudes. Even though these procedures are available, there are safer, straight -in approaches
available for both runway ends of Runway 11 -29.
ALUP Section 4.4.3, Delineation of Safety Areas, states the considerations of primary
importance: "a. The flight paths most heavily utilized by aircraft departing from or approaching
to land at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport — Flight paths utilized by a relatively
high proportion of arriving or departing aircraft are associated with an increased accident risk. b.
The flight paths utilized by aircraft departing from or approaching to land at the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport during adverse weather conditions — Maintaining control of an aircraft
in conditions that make visualization of the horizon and the ground impossible is one of the most
challenging tasks that a pilot can face. Flight paths which have been designated by the Federal
Aviation Administration for use during reduced - visibility conditions, therefore, are of significant
concern to the ALUC. c. The anticipated altitude of aircraft operations — A critical operational
element in ensuring the safety of persons and property on the ground is the ability of the pilot of
a disabled airplane to avoid impact with inhabited structures. The likelihood of the pilot
accomplishing this is directly related to the time and gliding distance available, and both of these
are dependent on the aircraft's altitude at the time a malfunction occurs." There is no discussion
of how topography, geography, special flight procedures, special purpose aircraft, small aircraft
using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds warrant adjustments to the safety zones
recommended in the Handbook. There is only discussion in the ALUP's Section 4.4.3 and
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 140 Exhibit B
subsequent Section 4.4.4 (Delineation of Aviation Safety Sub - Areas) on considerations
surrounding flight maneuvers, which the Handbook's generic safety zones already take into
account.
Regardless, the LUCE and AOZ at this time have been updated to reflect the geographical
boundaries of the ALUP safety zones. The City is currently only going to overrule the land use
policies of the ALUP in specific safety zones.
(d) As discussed supra, adoption of the Handbook's generic safety zones does not
represent common practice. Among 139 adopted California airport land use plans
reviewed by an ALUC sub - committee, the generic zones were utilized without
modification in only 6.5 %.
Response 230: The LUCE and AOZ at this time have been updated to reflect the geographical
boundaries of the ALUP safety zones. The City is currently only going to overrule the land use
policies of the ALUP in specific safety zones.
(e) Finding 35 presents no evidence that the generic safety zones proposed by the
Johnson Report, the draft LUCE, and the Airport Overlay Zone would minimize the
public's exposure to aviation safety hazards, when compared to the safety zones
established by the existing ALUP.
Response 231: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670 - 21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
(f) Based on the foregoing, Finding 35 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 232: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxxvi. Finding 36
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 141
110. Finding 36 provides as follows:
Exhibit B
The historical accident data at SBP is insufficient to draw conclusions about risk of
accidents in the future based on frequency and consequence. However, the Handbook
aggregates all data regarding accidents and incidents and integrates this data into the
recommended safety zones. Each Handbook - identified safety zone represents a relatively
uniform risk level that is distinct from the other zones based upon mathematical analysis
of the accident location data. Appendix E of the 2011 Handbook contains updated aircraft
accident information that was compared to 2002 data in order to determine if changes to
the Handbook safety zones were warranted. As documented on page 3 -16 of the
Handbook, evidence from analysis of the new data was insufficient to conclude that
geographic distribution of accidents had significantly changed and therefore the basis for
the suggested zones had not changed. The Draft LUCE update and associated
implementation through an Airport Overlay Zone applies use limitations within
boundaries recommended by the Handbook (See Handbook, Pages 4 -20 through 4 -25)
and identifies overlay zones 1 -6 and associated land use standards that are consistent with
Chapter 4 of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook safety zones 1 -6 and
associated land use limitations.
111. Analysis of Finding 36:
(a) As noted above in Paragraph 109 supra, it is inaccurate and misleading to describe
the generic safety zones depicted in the Handbook as "recommended by the Handbook."
The generic zones are provided only as an informational resource for use by ALUCs.
The Handbook does not recommend that these generic zones be utilized for land use
compatibility planning at any specific airport.
Response 233: The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect the public interest in
aeronautics and aeronautical progress. The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics administers this statute. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for
conducting airport land use compatibility planning that is required by Article 3.5, Airport Land
Use Commissions, PUC Sections 21670- 21679.5. Article 3.5 mandates that the Division of
Aeronautics create a Handbook that contains the identification of essential elements for the
preparation of an ALUCP (or ALUP). The Handbook is intended to inform ALUCs, their staffs,
airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants and the public and to identify the requirements
and procedures for preparing effective compatibility planning documents. Therefore,
conformance with guidance in the Handbook is, in fact, demonstrating compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act requirements with respect to land use compatibility planning.
(b) As also noted in Paragraph 109 supra, only a tiny minority of ALUPs in
California actually adopt the generic safety zones without modification.
Response 234: An assessment of whether any of the safety zone adjustment factors described in
Table 3A of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook apply to SBP was provided in
Section 4.3 of the Johnson Aviation Airport Land Use Compatibility Report and has been copied
into this document as Response #35 for ease of reference. The findings from the Report indicate
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 142 Exhibit B
no safety zone adjustments from those suggested by the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook are required.
(c) Finding 35 presents no evidence that the generic safety zones proposed by the
Johnson Report and the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would minimize the
public's exposure to aviation safety hazards, when compared to the safety zones
established by the existing ALUP.
Response 235: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -6B, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.3B (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA -
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 "provide
for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these
airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards
adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety
problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of
airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive
noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not
already devoted to incompatible uses."
Regardless, the LUCE and AOZ at this time have been updated to reflect the geographical
boundaries of the ALUP safety zones. The City is currently only going to overrule the land use
policies of the ALUP in specific safety zones.
(d) Based on the foregoing, Finding 36 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 236: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxxvii. Finding 37
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 143
112. Finding 37 provides as follows:
Exhibit B
An analysis of the Handbook Safety Zone Adjustment Factors was completed for SBP in
section 4.3 of the Compatibility Report and the findings indicate that no safety zone
adjustments from those recommended by the Handbook are required (See Airport Land
Use Compatibility Report, Pages 33 -34).
113. Analysis of Finding 37:
(a) The "analysis" of safety zone adjustment factors provided in Section 4.3 of the
Johnson Report is inadequate, comprising only about a page and a half of text.
Response 237: The Airport Compatibility Report Section 4.3 provides a point -by -point summary
of the findings from the study of the Handbook Table 3A Safety Zone Adjustment Factors. This
analysis can also be found in Response #35 for ease of reference. The analysis looked at actual
safety risk posed to the operation at San Luis Obispo Airport and safety risk adjustments to that
operation that the FAA has made to accommodate any identified risks. The FAA is the regulator
of aviation safety and is solely responsible for establishing operating procedures at a commercial
service, public use airport like San Luis Obispo. It should be noted that the ALUP does not
specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table 3A of the Handbook. There is no
discussion of how topography, geography, special flight procedures, special purpose aircraft,
small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds (something that is being
corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the safety zones recommended in the
Handbook. Response #149 herein provides more details regarding this deficiency in the ALUP.
(b) In addition, Section 4.3 of the Johnson Report contains numerous factual errors
and half - truths. By way of example, such an error includes the assertion that high terrain
in the vicinity of the airport does not influence airport traffic patterns and the statement
that non -- precision approaches at SBP preclude descending below traffic pattern altitude.
In actuality, the visual glideslope for Runway 29 requires a 3.25° descent (rather than the
standard 3.00° slope) and the GPS approach to Runway 29 requires a 3.47° slope
precisely because of high terrain in the vicinity. It is also of note that within the past ten
(10) years, there has been a fatal airplane crash within the SBP airport planning area due
to an aircraft impacting high terrain during departure.
Response 238: The FAA commonly raises the visual glide slope indicator for a runway as a
means of clearing close -in obstructions to a runways final approach area. Runway 29 non-
precision instrument approaches have a number of low and close obstructions that are both
lighted and marked and shown on the approach procedure diagrams (approach plates). The
obstruction clearing standards are found in FAA Order 8260.313, United States Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures ( TERPS). This FAA Order provides a complete manual on the
requirements for establishing and maintaining an instrument procedure relative to obstructions in
the vicinity of a runway. A common practice explained in the TERPS Order to allow for an
instrument approach with low and close obstructions is to raise the visual glide slope indicator
and adjust the threshold crossing altitude for the procedure. While this practice can be used if
terrain is the low and close obstruction, that is not the case at San Luis Obispo. The controlling
obstructions consist of the light poles at the intersection of Buckley Road and Edna Road
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 144
Exhibit B
(c) A second major factual error in Section 4.3 of the Johnson Report is the statement
that "Non- precision approaches are charted for SBP, including RNAV (GPS) RWY 11,
RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, LOC RWY 11, and VOR TACA -A but the minimum descent
altitude for these procedures preclude descending below standard traffic pattern altitude
within the airport influence area." The traffic pattern altitude at SBP is 1,200 feet above
mean sea level (MSL) for light aircraft and 1,700 feet above MSL for twins and jets. The
minimum descent altitudes (MDA) for non - precision instrument approaches at SBP are:
LOC Rwy 11 VOR -A
RNAV (GPS) Rwy 11 RNAV (GPS) Rwy 29
1,040 feet MSL
1,120 feet MSL
1,000 feet MSL
1,180 feet MSL
The MDA for each of these non - precision approaches is less than the 1,200 feet MSL
specified as the pattern altitude for light aircraft and substantially lower than the 1,700
feet MSL pattern altitude for twins and jets.
Response 239: The review of non - precision instrument approach procedures based upon the
Handbook Table 3A is looking for added safety risk associated with the way in which these
procedures are flown when close to the ground. The point being made in the Airport
Compatibility Report is that aircraft making use of non - precision instrument approaches at SBP
have straight -in, positive course guidance when flying to the Runway 11/29 ends. The one non-
precision instrument approach procedure that does not provide straight -in, positive course
guidance (VOR or TACAN -A) requires that the airport is in sight and the pilot can fly visually to
the runway using the standard traffic pattern.
(d) Section 4.3 of the Johnson Report discusses only the safety zone adjustment
factors listed on pages 3 -21 and 3 -22 of the Handbook. Caltrans, however, recommends
an airport land use plan to consider all factors that may influence flight patterns in the
vicinity of the airport, including those which may be unique to the specific facility.
Response 240: The Airport Compatibility Report is focused expressly on any unique operational
activities at SBP that would suggest additional safety risk that is not inherent in the standard
operating procedures to and from airports. The establishment of safe operations and procedures
at San Luis Obispo Airport are regulated by the FAA. The FAA has not identified any unique
safety risks at SBP to modify its operational procedures. It should be noted that the ALUP does
not specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table 3A of the Handbook. There is no
discussion of how topography, geography, special flight procedures, special purpose aircraft,
small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds (something that is being
corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the safety zones recommended in the
Handbook. Response #149 herein provides more details regarding this deficiency in the ALUP.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 145
Exhibit B
(e) In light of the above deficiencies, Section 4.3 of the Johnson Report cannot be
considered an adequate basis for determining that no safety zone adjustments are
required.
Response 241: The Airport Compatibility Report is focused expressly on any unique operational
activities at SBP that would suggest additional safety risk that is not inherent in the standard
operating procedures to and from airports. The establishment of safe operations and procedures
at San Luis Obispo Airport are regulated by the FAA. The FAA has not identified any unique
safety risks at SBP to modify its operational procedures. It should be noted that the ALUP does
not specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table 3A of the Handbook. There is no
discussion of how topography, geography, special flight procedures, special purpose aircraft,
small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds (something that is being
corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the safety zones recommended in the
Handbook. Response #149 herein provides more details regarding this deficiency in the ALUP.
(f) As noted supra with regard to Findings 35 and 36, it is inaccurate and misleading
to describe the generic safety zones depicted in the Handbook as "recommended by the
Handbook." The generic zones are provided only as an informational resource for use by
ALUCs. The Handbook does not recommend that these generic zones be utilized for
land use compatibility planning at any specific airport.
Response 242: The Handbook states, "While ALUCs are not mandated to use the sample zones
provided in the Handbook, they are mandated to create zones that have easily definable
geometric shapes, are as compact as possible, have a distinct progression in the degree of risk
represented, and are limited to a realistic number (five or six should be adequate in most cases)."
The generic safety zones already take into account many of the factors common to all airports of
similar characteristics. The Handbook states, "the shapes and sizes of the zones were established
based upon mathematical analyses of the accident location data presented in this and Appendix
E. Not clearly stated in past editions, though, was that another factor also played a part in the
zone delineation and is important to acknowledge here: flight parameters. More specifically, as
an aircraft approaches for landing or climbs out after takeoff, how is it being operated? Where is
it normally flying relative to the runway, and at what altitude? Is it flying straight and level or
turning and climbing or descending? What actions pose the greatest stress on the aircraft and
greatest potential for loss of control or fewest options for recovery if the unexpected occurs?
Where are conflicts between aircraft in flight most likely to happen and potentially create risks
for the land uses below ?"
Table 3A in the Handbook, then provides the factors under which adjustments to those sample
zones are warranted. The Airport Compatibility Report Section 4.3 provides a point -by -point
summary of the findings from the study of the Handbook Table 3A Safety Zone Adjustment
Factors. This analysis can also be found in Response #35 for ease of reference. The analysis
looked at actual safety risk posed to the operation at San Luis Obispo Airport and safety risk
adjustments to that operation that the FAA has made to accommodate any identified risks. The
FAA is the regulator of aviation safety and is solely responsible for establishing operating
procedures at a commercial service, public use airport like San Luis Obispo. It should be noted
that the ALUP does not specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table 3A of the
Handbook. There is no discussion of how topography, geography, special flight procedures,
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 146 Exhibit B
special purpose aircraft, small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds
(something that is being corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the safety zones
recommended in the Handbook. Response #149 herein provides more details regarding this
deficiency in the ALUP.
Regardless, the LUCE and AOZ at this time have been updated to reflect the geographical
boundaries of the ALUP safety zones. The City is currently only going to overrule the land use
policies of the ALUP in specific safety zones.
(g) As also noted supra, the use of the Handbook's generic safety zones does not
represent a common practice. Among 139 adopted California airport land use plans
reviewed by an ALUC sub - committee, the generic zones were utilized without
modification in only 6.5 %.
Response 243: The Airport Compatibility Report is focused expressly on any unique operational
activities at SBP that would suggest additional safety risk that is not inherent in the standard
operating procedures to and from airports. The establishment of safe operations and procedures
at San Luis Obispo Airport are regulated by the FAA. The FAA has not identified any unique
safety risks at SBP to modify its operational procedures. It should be noted that the ALUP does
not specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table 3A of the Handbook. There is no
discussion of how topography, geography, special flight procedures, special purpose aircraft,
small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds (something that is being
corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the safety zones recommended in the
Handbook. Response #149 herein provides more details regarding this deficiency in the ALUP.
(h) Finding 37 presents no evidence that the generic safety zones proposed by the
Johnson Report and the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update would minimize the
public's exposure to aviation safety hazards as effectively as the safety zones established
by the existing ALUP.
Response 244: The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report was to establish the
basis for the airport-area policies chapter in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility
Report provides much factual evidence that all Federal, State, and local laws and guidance
material have been followed, this includes: FAA AC 150/5070 -613, Airport Master Plans, FAA
AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983),
FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports
(1987), FAA Order 8260.313 (June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(2011), and Sections 5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California
Public Utilities Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE
Update follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA -
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise contours
presented in the EA/EIR, and guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that as per PUC Section 21670 "provide
for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 147 Exhibit B
airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards
adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety
problems... protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of
airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive
noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not
already devoted to incompatible uses."
(i) Based on the foregoing, Finding 37 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 245: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxxviii. Finding 38
114. Finding 38 provides as follows:
LUCE Policies and the adoption of the Airport Overlay Zone provide both a policy
frame work and standards for development to ensure that development is consistent with
allowable densities, height limitation, allowable uses, and other safety standards to ensure
that development is evaluated for consistency with the State Aeronautics' Act. The
Airport Overlay Zone took into account existing and proposed facilities identified in the
Airport Master Plan (AMP) in establishing standards for development to ensure that
future development would only be allowed in areas that minimize risk to public health
and safety and consistent with the State Aeronautics Act and the recommended
Handbook Safety Zones. LUCE Policies and the adoption of the Airport Overlay Zone
provide both a policy frame work and standards for development to ensure that
development is consistent with densities /intensities, height, allowed uses, obstructions,
noise and other safety standards to ensure that development is evaluated for consistency
with the State Aeronautics Act. The Airport Overlay Zone took into account existing and
proposed facilities identified in the Airport Master Plan (AMP) in establishing standards
for development to ensure that future development would only be allowed in areas that
minimize risk to public health and safety and are consistent with Handbook Safety Zones.
115. Analysis of Finding 38:
(a) When compared to the ALUP that has been in place since 2002 (with minor
revisions in 2004 and 2005), the provisions of the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates
would allow increased density of development in areas where aviation safety hazards
exist and would permit a significantly greater density of noise - sensitive development in
areas impacted by aviation noise. This is inconsistent with the legislative intent and
purposes of the SAA, as set forth in PUC Section 21670.
Response 246: The LUCE and implementing AOZ represent a limited overrule of the ALUP and
the action has been developed only after significant technical evaluation of the particular safety
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 148 Exhibit B
and noise considerations that apply to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. The
evaluation and documentation of noise and safety hazards associated with the airport has been
documented in the Johnson Report and is based on the adopted Airport Master Plan with
guidance from the most recent version of the Handbook. As previously noted, the ALUP does
not reflect the AMP nor the noise contours and safety evaluation conducted with the EIR for the
AMP. The safety zones identified in the ALUP have had substantially the same configuration
since 1977 despite updated information incorporated into the Handbook guidance and updates to
the Airport Master Plan.
(b) The LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates would place future decisions
concerning the compatibility of proposed land uses in the hands of the City Council, a
group that has no demonstrated expertise or experience in aeronautics or airport
operations, rather the with the duly- constituted ALUC. Placing the responsibility for
such decisions to a body that lacks the specialized knowledge to fully understand all of
the issues and factors involved is contrary to the purpose of the SAA to "minimize the
public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public
airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
Response 247: Future decisions of land use will either conform to areas where the ALUC has
already provided a determination of consistency or will be based upon use, intensity, and density
limitations defined in the AOZ based upon Caltrans Aeronautics guidance as expressed in the
Handbook and through detailed evaluation of local conditions in the Johnson Aviation Report.
Changes to general plan, specific plans, or zoning will require referral to the ALUC for review
and determination in accordance with PUC Section 21676(b). Provisions in the AOZ refer to the
ALUP for obstruction, overflight, and land use policies for Safety Zones RPZ, and S -la. The
overrule is limited in scope to smaller areas of Safety Zones S -lb, S -lc and S -2 outside of those
specific plans previously found by the ALUC to be in conformance with the ALUP.
(c) As noted above with regard to Findings 35 through 37, it is inaccurate and
misleading to describe the generic safety zones depicted in the Handbook as
"recommended by the Handbook." The generic zones are provided only as an
informational resource for use by ALUCs. The Handbook does not recommend that
these generic zones be utilized for land use compatibility planning at any specific airport.
Response 248: The Handbook states, "While ALUCs are not mandated to use the sample zones
provided in the Handbook, they are mandated to create zones that have easily definable
geometric shapes, are as compact as possible, have a distinct progression in the degree of risk
represented, and are limited to a realistic number (five or six should be adequate in most cases)."
The generic safety zones already take into account many of the factors common to all airports of
similar characteristics. The Handbook states, "the shapes and sizes of the zones were established
based upon mathematical analyses of the accident location data presented in this and Appendix
E. Not clearly stated in past editions, though, was that another factor also played a part in the
zone delineation and is important to acknowledge here: flight parameters. More specifically, as
an aircraft approaches for landing or climbs out after takeoff, how is it being operated? Where is
it normally flying relative to the runway, and at what altitude? Is it flying straight and level or
turning and climbing or descending? What actions pose the greatest stress on the aircraft and
greatest potential for loss of control or fewest options for recovery if the unexpected occurs?
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 149 Exhibit B
Where are conflicts between aircraft in flight most likely to happen and potentially create risks
for the land uses below ?"
Table 3A in the Handbook, then provides the factors under which adjustments to those sample
zones are warranted. The Airport Compatibility Report Section 4.3 provides a point -by -point
summary of the findings from the study of the Handbook Table 3A Safety Zone Adjustment
Factors. This analysis can also be found in Response #35 for ease of reference. The analysis
looked at actual safety risk posed to the operation at San Luis Obispo Airport and safety risk
adjustments to that operation that the FAA has made to accommodate any identified risks. The
FAA is the regulator of aviation safety and is solely responsible for establishing operating
procedures at a commercial service, public use airport like San Luis Obispo. It should be noted
that the ALUP does not specifically discuss the adjustment factors found in Table 3A of the
Handbook. There is no discussion of how topography, geography, special flight procedures,
special purpose aircraft, small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds
(something that is being corrected as stated in the AMP) warrant adjustments to the safety zones
recommended in the Handbook. Response #149 herein provides more details regarding this
deficiency in the ALUP.
Regardless, the LUCE and AOZ at this time have been updated to reflect the geographical
boundaries of the ALUP safety zones. The City is currently only going to overrule the land use
policies of the ALUP in specific safety zones.
(d) As also noted above, the use of the Handbook's generic safety zones does not
even represent a common practice. Among 139 adopted California airport land use plans
reviewed by an ALUC sub - committee, the generic zones were utilized without
modification in only 6.5 %.
Response 249: Regardless of the deficiencies noted in the previous response, the LUCE and
AOZ at this time have been updated to reflect the geographical boundaries of the ALUP safety
zones. The City is currently only going to overrule the land use policies of the ALUP in specific
safety zones.
(e) Finding 38 presents no factual evidence that the "policy framework and standards
for development" contained in the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update would minimize
the public's exposure to aviation noise and safety hazards as effectively as the noise,
safety, airspace protection, and overflight policies established by the existing ALUP.
Response 250: The Johnson Report documents safety and noise considerations associated with
the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. Future decisions of land use will either conform
to areas where the ALUC has already provided a determination of consistency or will be based
upon use, intensity, and density limitations defined in the AOZ based upon Caltrans Aeronautics
guidance as expressed in the Handbook and through detailed evaluation of local conditions in the
Johnson Aviation Report. Changes to general plan, specific plans, or zoning will require referral
to the ALUC for review and determination in accordance with PUC Section 21676(b).
Provisions in the AOZ refer to the ALUP for obstruction, overflight, and land use policies for
Safety Zones RPZ, and S -la. The overrule is limited in scope to smaller areas of Safety Zones
S -lb, S -lc and S -2 outside of those specific plans previously found by the ALUC to be in
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 150 Exhibit B
conformance with the ALUP. The State Aeronautics Act does not require the overrule to comply
with the ALUP's method of addressing noise and safety concerns but rather leaves the land use
authority with the local agency provided the public health, safety, and welfare is protected and
the land use measures minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards
within areas around public airports. The LUCE policies and programs including implementation
through the AOZ do provide such protections.
(f) Based on the foregoing, Finding 38 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 251: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xxix. Finding 39
116. Finding 39 provides as follows:
Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.060 contains Airspace Protection standards to reduce
the risk of harm to people and property resulting from an aircraft accident by preventing
the creation of land use features and prohibition of any activities that can pose hazards to
the airspace used by aircraft in flight, consistent with recommendations beginning on
Page 4 -34 of the Handbook beginning.
Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR Part 77) and Public Utilities Code (PUC)
Section 21659, the Airport Overlay Zone 17.57.060 ensures that no structures shall
penetrate the airspace protection surfaces of the airport without a permit from the
California Department of Transportation, or a determination by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) that the object does not constitute a hazard to air navigation or
would not create an unsafe condition for air navigation. The LUCE and associated
Airport Overlay Zone implement this guidance in compliance with Handbook Chapter 3.
Building permits for such structures shall not be issued until a Determination of No
Hazard has been issued by the FAA and any conditions in that Determination are met.
Approvals for such projects may include the requirement for an avigation easement,
marking or lighting of the structure, or modifications to the structure.
Response 252: The provisions in the Land Use Element call for implementation standards that
address obstructions and other hazards to flight. The AOZ has been amended to state that
airspace protection standards regarding obstruction and hazards to air navigation are defined in
the ALUP and apply to land uses and development within the AOZ. Therefore to the extent that
the ALUP implements and meets the requirements of PUC Sections to minimize the public's
exposure to aviation safety hazards, so does the LUCE update and associated implementation
through the AOZ.
117. Analysis of Finding 39:
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 151
Exhibit B
(a) The airspace protections of Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.060 are
demonstrably weaker than those established by the current ALUP. Consequently, as
compared to the ALUP, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates fail to minimize the
public's exposure to aviation safety hazards.
Response 253: The provisions in the Land Use Element call for implementation standards that
address obstructions and other hazards to flight. The AOZ has been amended to state that
airspace protection standards regarding obstruction and hazards to air navigation are defined in
the ALUP and apply to land uses and development within the AOZ. Therefore to the extent that
the ALUP implements and meets the requirements of PUC Sections to minimize the public's
exposure to aviation safety hazards, so does the LUCE update and associated implementation
through the AOZ.
(b) Based on the foregoing, Finding 39 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 254: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xl. Finding 40
118. Finding 40 provides as follows:
Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.060 further prohibits other activities that could pose
a hazard to flight operations, including but not limited to: distracting lights, sources of
dust, steam, heat or smoke, sources of electrical interference and features that attract
birds. These standards are consistent with the Airspace Protection and Hazards to Flight
guidelines beginning on Page 4 -34 of the Handbook and therefore provide for airspace
protection that minimizes public health and safety consistent with the State Aeronautics
Act.
Response 255: The provisions in the Land Use Element call for implementation standards that
address obstructions and other hazards to flight. The AOZ has been amended to state that
airspace protection standards regarding obstruction and hazards to air navigation are defined in
the ALUP and apply to land uses and development within the AOZ. Therefore to the extent that
the ALUP implements and meets the requirements of PUC Sections to minimize the public's
exposure to aviation safety hazards, so does the LUCE update and associated implementation
through the AOZ.
119. Analysis of Finding 40:
(a) The provisions of Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.060 related to hazards to
aerial navigation are weaker than those established by the current ALUP. Consequently,
as compared to the ALUP, the draft LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update fail to
minimize the public's exposure to aviation safety hazards.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 152 Exhibit B
Response 256: The provisions in the Land Use Element call for implementation standards that
address obstructions and other hazards to flight. The AOZ has been amended to state that
airspace protection standards regarding obstruction and hazards to air navigation are defined in
the ALUP and apply to land uses and development within the AOZ. Therefore to the extent that
the ALUP implements and meets the requirements of PUC Sections to minimize the public's
exposure to aviation safety hazards, so does the LUCE update and associated implementation
through the AOZ.
(b) Based on the foregoing, Finding 40 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 257: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xii. Finding 41
120. Finding 41 provides as follows:
Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.080 includes overflight standards and requires
overflight notification for land uses near the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
and requires that all owners of property offered for -sale or for- lease within the Airport
Overlay Zone to provide a disclosure prior to selling or leasing property in San Luis
Obispo, disclosing that the property is routinely subject to overflights by aircraft and, as a
result, residents may experience inconvenience, annoyance, or discomfort arising from
the noise of such operations. This is consistent with guidelines beginning on Page 4 -13 of
the handbook. Further, the disclosure reiterates the importance of public -use airports to
protection of the public interest of the people of the state of California indicates that the
current volume of aircraft activity may increase in the future in response to San Luis
Obispo County and City population and economic growth. Said Section 17.57.080
requires that all subsequent deeds conveying land within the Airport Overlay Zone shall
contain a statement such a disclosure and that such disclosure shall be recorded and
appear with the property deed.
Response 258: Caltrans guidance through the Handbook states, "More important is to give
people who may be annoyed by airport noise timely information with which to assess how living
in the vicinity of an airport would affect them. In this respect, developing overflight
compatibility policies becomes less about restricting land uses, and more focused on informing
prospective property owners of the presence of an airport and making them aware of the
potential for noise impacts associated with overflying aircraft. ,5 The statement by the ALUC
above which references the safety hazards of overflight overstates the issue and points out the
inherent deficiencies in the ALUP that mixes noise issues with safety issues. Despite this finding
5 Section 4.3 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, page 4 -13
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 153 Exhibit B
by the ALUC, the overflight provisions in the AOZ 17.57.080 have been amended to defer to the
disclosure requirements in the ALUP. Therefore to the extent that the ALUP implements and
meets the requirements of PUC Sections to minimize the public's exposure to aviation safety
hazards so does the LUCE update and associated implementation through the AOZ.
121. Analysis of Finding 41:
(a) The overflight provisions of Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.080 are weaker
than those established by the current ALUP. Consequently, as compared to the ALUP,
the draft LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Updates fail to minimize the public's exposure to
aviation safety hazards.
Response 259: Caltrans guidance through the Handbook states, "More important is to give
people who may be annoyed by airport noise timely information with which to assess how living
in the vicinity of an airport would affect them. In this respect, developing overflight
compatibility policies becomes less about restricting land uses, and more focused on informing
prospective property owners of the presence of an airport and making them aware of the
potential for noise impacts associated with overflying aircraft. ,6 The statement by the ALUC
above which references the safety hazards of overflight overstates the issue and points out the
inherent deficiencies in the ALUP that mixes noise issues with safety issues. Despite this finding
by the ALUC, the overflight provisions in the AOZ 17.57.080 have been amended to defer to the
disclosure requirements in the ALUP. Therefore to the extent that the ALUP implements and
meets the requirements of PUC Sections to minimize the public's exposure to aviation safety
hazards so does the LUCE update and associated implementation through the AOZ.
(b) Based on the foregoing, Finding 41 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 260: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
xiii. Finding 42
122. Finding 42 provides as follows:
Airport Overlay Zone Section 17.57.090 requires that substantial open space be
maintained in the Airport Overlay Zone area for emergency landings, pursuant to
guidelines beginning on Page 4 -30 of the Handbook. Within the Airport Area Specific
Plan area, the following open space is required for this purpose: 250 acres on the Chevron
property with two areas specifically improved to meet ALUC standards; and a 300' wide
strip adjacent to Buckley Road (24 acres) on the Avila Ranch site. Substantial open area
is also required for this purpose within the Margarita Area Specific Plan area, at Laguna
6 Section 4.3 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, page 4 -13
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 154
Exhibit B
Lake Park; on the Brughelli property south of Buckley Road; and within the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan area, west of Highway 101 and south of Dalidio Drive. Section
17.57.090 further provides that where open space or conservation easements have been
obtained and the topography supports it, the City shall not allow uses to be established
that conflict with their availability to be used as a landing option in the event of an
emergency. Where easements have yet to be obtained, the City shall incorporate the
requirement for open land as part of the discretionary approval process. The amount of
open space required within the Airport Overlay Zone is prescribed for each of the six (6)
Airport Overlay sub - zones, consistent with the Handbook.
Response 261: The last sentence of section 17.57.090 that references the Handbook zones has
been struck and additional language has been incorporated into the AOZ to reflect ALUP
direction for size, orientation and topography for future ACOS areas.
123. Analysis of Finding 42:
(a) The current ALUP establishes adequate and appropriate open space within the
airport land use planning area through the mechanism of an Airport Compatible Open
Space Plan (ACOS). The ACOS is developed by a local agency and reviewed and
approved by the ALUC. The ALUP provides for additional density of development in
most aviation safety areas on properties that are encompassed by an ACOS. Evaluation
and approval of the ACOS ensures that the location, size, orientation, and topography of
each open space is adequate to allow its ready identification by the pilot of an aircraft in
distress and to provide a usable alternative to an off - airport landing in developed
neighborhoods.
Response 262: Four of the ACOS areas provide for additional density in the AASP and the
MASP specific plan areas. The Airport Overlay Zone does not apply to areas previously found
consistent by the ALUC with the ALUP. LUCE update includes a policy to maintain open areas
as part of the AASP and a policy to obtain open space uses outside of the urban reserve line. The
implementing AOZ codifies a previously endorsed Airport Compatible Open Space (ACOS)
Plan to reflect five of the ACOS areas approved by the ALUC as well as a requirement to seek
additional open land areas as part of discretionary land use approvals for projects within the
ALUP boundaries. The two areas subject to future specific plans, Avila Ranch and San Luis
Ranch, have ACOS areas identified and endorsed by the ALUC that will be incorporated in the
development proposals referred to the ALUC for subsequent review. Only one other major
development area is proposed as part of the LUCE, the Madonna at Los Osos Valley Road, and
while it will include a significant amount of open space, the site is primarily in Safety Zone 2
and is comprised of steep hillsides, unsuitable for a designated ACOS area. Additional language
has been incorporated into the AOZ to reflect ALUP direction for size, orientation and
topography for future ACOS areas.
(b) In. contrast, the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Update provide no mechanism for
the review or evaluation of proposed open space areas by any group with expertise in
aviation. This deficiency is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the SAA to "minimize
the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public
airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 155 Exhibit B
Response 263: Four of the ACOS areas provide for additional density in the AASP and the
MASP specific plan areas. The Airport Overlay Zone does not apply to areas previously found
consistent by the ALUC with the ALUP. LUCE update includes a policy to maintain open areas
as part of the AASP and a policy to obtain open space uses outside of the urban reserve line. The
implementing AOZ codifies a previously endorsed Airport Compatible Open Space (ACOS)
Plan to reflect five of the ACOS areas approved by the ALUC as well as a requirement to seek
additional open land areas as part of discretionary land use approvals for projects within the
ALUP boundaries. The two areas subject to future specific plans, Avila Ranch and San Luis
Ranch, have ACOS areas identified and endorsed by the ALUC that will be incorporated in the
development proposals referred to the ALUC for subsequent review. Only one other major
development area is proposed as part of the LUCE, the Madonna at Los Osos Valley Road, and
while it will include a significant amount of open space, the site is primarily in Safety Zone 2
and is comprised of steep hillsides, unsuitable for a designated ACOS area. Additional language
has been incorporated into the AOZ to reflect ALUP direction for size, orientation and
topography for future ACOS areas.
(c) Based on the foregoing, Finding 42 does not meet the requirements set forth in
PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is, therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 264: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters and
contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with State Law.
II1. CONCLUSION
For the reasons described above, the ALUC has determined that the forty -two (42) Findings do
not meet the requirements contained within PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and that they are,
therefore, inadequate to support the overrule.
Response 265: As first stated in Response #36, and repeated several times, the City meets all the
requirements set forth in PUC Sections 21676(b) and 21670 and is completely justified in its
overrule. The City has also retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land use
Attachments to ALUC Comment letter:
Exhibit A: Caltrans Response to LUCE Draft EIR
Disposition: Responded to in LUCE Final EIR
Exhibit B: ALUC Notice of Determination in Response to LUCE /AOZ Referral
Disposition: Received by City on July 16, 2014
Exhibit C: City Notice of Intent to Overrule
Disposition: Copy of action taken San Luis Obispo City Council on August 19, 2014
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 156
Exhibit B
Exhibit D: ALUC Subcommittee Critique of Johnson Aviation Report
Disposition: General Responses provided by Johnson Aviation on June 16, 2014
Exhibit E: Caltrans letter indicating City should not certify EIR until overrule has occurred
Disposition: City Council certified EIR on September 16, 2014.
* * * * * ** *End of Response * * * * * * **
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 157
•
DATE: October 14, 2014
TO: City Council
FROM; Derek Johnson, Director, Community Development Department
PREPARED BY: Nick Johnson, Johnson Aviation
Exhibit C
SUBJECT: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RESPONSE TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS SEPTEMBER 17,
2014 COMMENTS AND SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 CORRECTION LETTER
REGARDING THE CITY'S INTENT TO OVERRULE THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE
DRAFT LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT (LUCE) UPDATE AND
ASSOCIATED IMPLEMENTATION INCLUDING CREATION OF AIRPORT
OVERLAY ZONING REGULATIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN
Discussion
The City received a letter from Caltrans on September 17, 2014 and a correction letter from
Caltrans on September 22, 2014 in response to the City's letter to Caltrans on August 22, 2014
transmitting the City's proposed intent to overrule the ALUC determination of inconsistency
pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b). The letters by Caltrans raise a number of
concerns and make many factual and legal misstatements that it is necessary to address each
point for the record. The purpose of this report is to provide factual information and the proper
legal standard of review for local jurisdictions considering overrule of an ALUC determination.
To aid in understanding of the legal standard of review, Lori Ballance with Gatzke Dillon and
Ballance, LLP, a land use and environmental attorney specializing in California Airport Land
Use issues has been retained by the City. Ms. Ballance provided legal guidance to Caltrans in
the development of the 2011 update of the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(Handbook). Because of her expertise in this area of law, we have asked that she summarize for
ease of public reference the statutory framework surrounding the ALUC consistency and
overrule process. In response, Lori has provided a memo titled, "Public Memorandum
Rep-ardinE LUCE to Overrule Process." This memo is important to the review of the process
and framework issues raised by Caltrans and is intended to aid CalTrans in understanding the
City's revised approach and the Council and the public in evaluating the issues raised and the
City's responses to those issues. In responding to the Caltrans comments related to the legal
requirements we have referenced Ms. Ballance's memo (Attachment A) additional support for
the City's position on the matter.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 158
SPECIFIC ISSUES
Exhibit C
1. Page 1, Paragraph 1, second sentence: "We encourage collaboration with our partners in
the planning process and thank you for including us in the review of the proposed
overrule of the San Luis Obispo County ALUC [emphasis added]."
Response 1: The City is proposing to overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination
specifically relative to noise and to allow for a limited amount of development within
three (3) of the ALUP safety zones, in a manner that would be in conflict with the ALUP,
but that would not conflict with Guidelines provided in the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook. The City is not proposing to usurp the ALUP or the ALUC's powers
as is suggested at several points throughout the Caltrans letter. Rather, the City is
exercising its rights to set local land use policies that may be in conflict with ALUC
objectives, as provided in Section 21676(b) of the State Aeronautics Act after an
exhaustive process of conducting analysis based on verifiable data and objective,
independent airport operations projections.
2. Page 1, Paragraph 3: "The Division has reviewed the proposed findings provided by the
City and has determined the findings are legally insufficient to support the overrule.
Specifically, the findings are not consistent with the purposes of the statutes set forth in
California Public Utilities Code (PUC), section 21670. The City's findings' do not
provide substantial evidence that the proposed LUCE will meet the requirements of PUC,
section 21670(a)(1) &(2)."
Response 2: The City has retained outside legal counsel that specializes in airport land
use planning matters and a consultant that specializes in airport land use planning matters
and contends that its Findings are legally sufficient and they are fully consistent with
State Law (See Ballance Memo on Legal Requirements and Legal Framework).
3. Page 1, Paragraph 4: "As it will be discussed below, based on the uniqueness of the
airport, the level of service it offers, its location, and the accident history, the overrule
will result in land use conflicts and safety hazards, a risk that the City should not be
willing to accept."
Response 3: The City has considered all relevant facts regarding airport land use
compatibility and safety, as well as balanced the City's other land use and circulation
considerations (such as the desire to promote compact urban infill development within
the existing urban reserve line and to further its agricultural and open space preservation
objectives) in its proposed decision to overrule the ALUC determination in this matter.
Factors offered above — level of service, location, accident history, obstructions, hazards,
and noise — have all been evaluated and considered. LUCE policies and programs and
the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) reflect appropriate land uses, density and intensity
limitations to reflect concerns related to aircraft operation and the overrule is limited in
scope and geographic area. The LUCE and AOZ reflect the Airport Land Use Plan
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 159
Exhibit C
(ALUP) boundaries and refer to the ALUP for many provisions, including restrictions in
the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) and Safety Area S -la. When making land use
decisions, the City has a broader set of issues and community priorities to consider in
addition to airport compatibility. This is why the statutes provide that the City may
overrule the ALUC determination, and in this case, an overrule is particularly appropriate
because the ALUP does not include or establish a verifiable factual and data -based
foundation for its land use policies.
Other factors considered include a note from the Handbook, Page 4 -17 which offers
information particularly appropriate for consideration at San Luis Obispo: "Note that this
urban versus rural distinction is not limited just to differences between one airport and
another, it may also be true between various portions of individual airport's environs.
Consequently, it may be reasonable for compatibility criteria to allow comparatively
intensive development and /or infill development in one part of an airport's vicinity, but
not in another. If an ALUC chooses to take this approach, however, sufficient reasoning
should be provided."
The City of San Luis Obispo has thoughtfully addressed this approach suggested by the
Handbook in the course of its LUCE process. The City has likewise reached out to the
ALUC for over two years to bring these ideas to the table for consideration. After
numerous friendly requests, the City was forced to make a Public Records Act request of
both the ALUC1 and CaltranS2 to attempt to simply review a copy of the proposed update
to the ALUC's Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Despite these attempts by the City to
participate in the ALUP update process, both the ALUC and Caltrans refused to provide a
copy of the ALUP update. Only after the City announced its intent to overrule the ALUC
determination on the LUCE did the ALUC finally make a public release of a copy of their
draft ALUP. This approach does not demonstrate an open and inclusive planning
process. The City maintains that moving forward based on data, verifiable facts and
sound planning principles is the best option available, and hopes the ALUC will be open
to this approach as the ALUP is updated, so that both the community and the ALUC can
work towards a common goal of a vibrant and safe airport and surrounding community.
4. Page 1, Paragraph 6: "If the City proceeds with this overrule, the Division still views the
City LUCE as inconsistent with the ALUP. This means the ALUC has the right to require
the City to forward every project within the Airport Influence Area to the City for
review."
Response 4: This statement is contrary to state law. The outcome of the City's
overruling is that the LUCE will take effect as if the ALUC had approved it or found it
consistent with the ALUP. Subsequent ALUC review of individual development projects
related to the overruling become voluntary (PUC Section 21676.5(b)). If the City did
'Public Records Act request to ALUC for copy of ALUP update via email to County 2 -26 -14 was denied by County
in writing on 3- 10 -14.
2 Public Records Act request was submitted via email on 3 -24 -14 to Caltrans for copy of ALUP draft submitted by
ALUC to Caltrans for review. Initial response to comply put in abeyance prior to receipt of document and no
subsequent response provided despite repeated contacts for status by City staff.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 160
Exhibit C
NOT overrule the ALUC, then the ALUC could require the City to submit all land use
actions, regulations, and permits to the ALUC for review (Section 21676.5(a)). The
City's overrule is limited in scope and does not usurp the ALUC's statutory authority; it
merely reflects an exercise of the City's statutory and constitutional land use authority.
Future development that is inconsistent with the LUCE, or that otherwise requires a
General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan or rezone, would be referred to the ALUC for
review as required by PUC Section 21676(b).
5. Page 1 and 2, Finding 3: "Finding 3 points out that the currently adopted ALUP is
outdated and flawed. The City is aware that the ALUC is working on updating its ALUP,
thus, many of the City's findings may be eliminated by the new ALUP. Perhaps the City
can wait for this update before it updates its LUCE. Ideally the planning process works
best if the City updates its General Plan after the ALUC updates the ALUP. Then, local
and State resources are not duplicated or wasted on moot issues."
"Finding 3 states the ALUP does not comply with the public health and safety
requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. Such a statement lacks merit, as the Division
is responsible for reviewing ALUPs and making the determination whether or not the
ALUP meets the requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. The Division has reviewed
the ALUP several times and finds that it meets the requirements of the State Aeronautics
Act."
Response 5: This comment acknowledges that the existing ALUP is outdated and
flawed, but that an update is being prepared. As a practical matter, data and other input
from the City should be essential to the ALUC's preparation of the updated ALUP.
Adoption and, ultimately, successful implementation of the updated ALUP will require
cooperation by the ALUC as well. The City is not required to "wait" until the ALUP
Update is approved prior to updating its General Plan. Rather, the ALUC should be
involved in informal negotiations with the City in order to resolve any land use conflicts.
These discussions did occur over the last two and half years and the City and the ALUC
have been unable to reach consensus and resolve differences regarding the technical data
and information to inform and resolve planning issues. The ALUC and the City have
different objectives with respect to planning for land uses around airports. For the
ALUC, protection of the airports from incompatible development is its sole objective.
The City shares this important objective and must also consider broader community
needs in land use decisions. Despite this difference, achieving a mutually acceptable
compatibility plan continues to be the City's goal. As in many cases in other counties in
the state, this may ultimately require a compromise which will adequately protect the
airport from incompatible land uses yet reasonably respond to the community's
development goals.
The Division is not required to determine whether or not an ALUP meets the
requirements of the State Aeronautics Act. Rather, Caltrans is only required to provide
approval for the ALUC to use an ALP (instead of a master plan) for purposes of
compatibility planning. City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 161
Exhibit C
Commission, 210 Cal.App.3d 1277. The Division does not have approval authority over
an ALUP.
6. Page 2, Finding 4: "Finding 4 states that the ALUP has not changed its safety zones for
37 years, since it was adopted in 1977. According to our records the ALUP was adopted
in 1973 and has been amended in 2002, 2004 and 2005. It is not necessary to change
safety zones unless there has been a significant change to an airport's runway or the
aircraft that use the airport."
Response 6: Although ALUCs are not required to amend their compatibility plans in
response to the Handbooks (2002 and 2011), Caltrans generally encourages ALUCs to
review and update their compatibility plans at least every five years or more frequently
for communities where conditions are changing rapidly. Also, the 2002 Handbook
introduced completely different concepts for safety zones - it is disingenuous for Caltrans
to say that safety zones put in place 37 years ago do not need to be revisited in the
context of the new Handbook recommendations with respect to safety. Also, and as
indicated above, the question is not just if there has been a change to the airport, but also
whether conditions in the community have changed. Just as airports update their master
plans periodically to respond to changing needs in the aviation industry, so too should the
ALUC review and revise as necessary the ALUP. Significant additional data, analysis
and validation of the aircraft accident and risk analysis information have been updated in
the Handbook in both 2002, and 2011. Further, San Luis Obispo County adopted the new
Master Plan and environmental document along with constructing two significant runway
extension/improvements, yet the ALUC has not incorporated these significant changes
into its ALUP.
7. Page 2, Finding 5: "Finding 5 claims that the safety zones are not accurately aligned with
San Luis Obispo Airport runways. It is the Division's understanding that this is one of the
items the ALUC will be updating in the draft ALUP."
Response 7: Both the ALUC and CalTrans agree with the City's conclusion that the
runway alignments included in the current plan are incorrect and require revision. The
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states on page 3 -16, "The dimension of
Zone 1 should reflect the runway protection zone as identified on an airport layout plan,
and described in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 -13: Airport Design." If the safety
zones are not accurately aligned, this requirement cannot be met. This disparity alone
could warrant an overrule of the current ALUP.
8. Page 2, Finding 6: "Finding 6 states, "State law requires ALUPs be consistent with the
Airport Master Plan (AMP), the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA)- approved Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). The existing ALUP is
not consistent with the AMP, the ALP or the TAF." State law does require the ALUP be
consistent with the AMP. Normally, an ALP and forecasts are found within an AMP, and
therefore, if the ALUP is consistent with the AMP, it would also be consistent with the
ALP and forecasts. State law does not require ALUPs be consistent with a TAF. This
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 162
Exhibit C
finding is vague, lacks foundation, and fails to cite to applicable statute. If you know
about a section of State law that requires ALUPs to be consistent with a TAF, please set
forth the referenced authority."
Response 8: Caltrans ignores the foundation of the FAA's requirements for approving
master plan forecasts, while affirming the State's requirement that ALUPs be based on an
approved master plan. Section 21675 requires the following: "The commission's airport
land use compatibility plan shall include and shall be based on a long -range master plan
or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department
of Transportation that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next
20 years." The approval of an airport master plan can only occur after compliance with
the CEQA, which includes preparation and adoption of a negative declaration (ND) or
mitigated negative declaration (MND) and /or preparation and certification of an
environmental impact report (EIR) for the Airport Master Plan. CEQA statutes and
guidelines state that an EIR shall be considered by every public agency prior to its
approval or disapproval of a project. "Project" shall include the carrying out or approval
of a plan that expands or enlarges an existing publicly owned airport.
The Airport Master Plan Update for San Luis Obispo Airport was completed in 2003,
revised in 2004, and accepted by the Board of Supervisors of the County in 2005. In
2006 the County completed and certified an Environmental Assessment (EA) and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for extension of the main Runway 11/29 and other
suggested Airport improvements. As per the EIR, "In accordance with FAA policy, the
FAA will use this EA for ALP approval and future federal funding approvals over the
next five -year period ... in accordance with CEQA, San Luis Obispo County is required to
be concerned with the `whole of the action,' which is defined as all projects identified in
the Master Plan program. Therefore, for purposes of this EA/EIR, the County's
obligation under CEQA is to include both phases of the Master Plan."
As part of the EIR, a comprehensive analysis of noise, using the forecasts prepared for
the airport master plan, was completed. This noise analysis was validated in the Airport
Land Use Compatibility Report also using the forecasts prepared for the Airport Master
Plan. Although it is stated in the ALUP that data was constructed from information and
projections presented in the Airport Maser Plan, the noise contours source presented in
the ALUP are cited as a noise study completed by Brown - Buntin Associates in April,
2001. A public records act request to both the County (10- 21 -13) and a direct request to
Brown - Buntin (2- 26 -14) failed to locate this study, which was used by the ALUC to set
noise contours based upon a hypothetical maximum use of airport runways. As seen in
Figure 6, the noise contours in the ALUP vastly differ from those in the EIR prepared for
the Airport Master Plan. The ALUP has adopted the 55 dB CNEL as the maximum
acceptable residential noise level and sets its land use policies using the noise contours
from the cited study from Brown - Buntin Associates instead of the Airport Master Plan
EIR. The Land Use Compatibility Table, in Section 5 of the ALUP, also sets its airport
noise exposure using the noise contours from the study from Brown - Buntin Associates
instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR. The Margarita Area Planning Standards for
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 163 Exhibit C
Airport Compatibility, in Section 6 of the ALUP, are also based on the noise contours
from the study from Brown - Buntin Associates instead of the Airport Master Plan EIR.
9. Page 2, Finding 7: "Finding 7 again points out the State statutes direct that an ALUP
must be based on an AMP and a TAF. Again, it would be helpful if the statute being
used in this finding is cited. It is correct that the ALUP must be based on an AMP, but
there is no mention of a TAF in the PUC."
Response 9: While there is no requirement for the ALUP to use forecast numbers from
the TAF, the ALUP must be based on the AMP. Caltrans continues to ignore the FAA's
requirements for approving master plan forecasts. The AMP was completed in 2003,
revised in 2004, and accepted by the Board of Supervisors of the County in 2005. In the
10 years since this planning was completed, much has changed in the aviation industry
and the local aviation activity at SBP. As a result, the forecasts of aviation activity
reflected in the Airport Master Plan Update require significant updates to better reflect
the existing conditions at SBP, and to better align with the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA's) official Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for the facility.
However, for the purposes of this LUCE Update, the City is relying on the SBP Master
Plan forecasts of aviation activity as a reasonably foreseeable projection of ultimate
aviation activity sufficient for long -term land use planning purposes, without regard for
the date of 2023 because it is uncertain when the forecast levels of activity will be
reached and because growth must be consistent with the capital improvement plan for the
Airport.
10. Page 2, Finding 8: "Finding 8 points out the Handbook recommends ALUPs have five or
six safety zones and that the zones be as compact as possible and easily definable
geometric shapes. This finding claims that the safety zones in the ALUP require complex
trigonometry to define. The ALUP only has five safety zones, and four of those are easily
definable geometric shapes. Regardless of what level of math it takes, the purpose of the
safety zones are to protect the airport. The Division believes that this is a section that
should be included in the ALUC update."
Response 10: The City agrees with Caltrans that the ALUC should be including the
revision of its safety zones as a foundational part of its ALUP update. While ALUCs are
not mandated to use the sample zones provided in the Handbook, they are mandated to
create zones that have easily definable geometric shapes, are as compact as possible, have
a distinct progression in the degree of risk represented, and are limited to a realistic
number (five or six should be adequate in most cases).
Caltrans concedes that only four of the ALUP's five safety zones are easily definable
geometric shapes. Furthermore, the zones increase in size, rather than decrease in size,
despite decreased risk from the aircraft operations with further distance from the airport.
ALUP Maneuvering Zone S -lb, due to the fact that its size, configuration and land use
criteria are inconsistent with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines
and criteria, has no such equivalent zone in the Handbook. This zone is also
unsubstantiated by the airport's activity forecasts as used for noise planning purposes,
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 164
Exhibit C
historical accident data at SBP, or safety zone adjustment factors as described in Table
3A of the Handbook. ALUP Sideline Zone S -lc, due to the fact that its size,
configuration and land use criteria are more restrictive than California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria, has no such equivalent zone in the Handbook.
This zone is also unsubstantiated by the airport's activity forecasts as used for noise
planning purposes, historical accident data at SBP, or safety zone adjustment factors as
described in Table 3A of the Handbook. ALUP Zone S -2 is not consistent with Zone 6 —
Traffic Pattern of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and
criteria. Safety Area S -2 is really just the ALUP's Airport Land Use Planning Area. The
ALUP states, "the dimensions of this area were defined in 1977 and have not changed. In
general terms, the Planning Area is an irregular oval, which is aligned with its long axis
in a northwest southeast direction, parallel to the centerline of Runway 11 -29 at the
Airport. The dimensions of the oval are approximately 31,600 feet by 20,850 feet. The
Planning Area extends from a point approximately '/z mile southeast of the community of
Edna on the southeast to West Oceanaire Drive in the Laguna Lake Subdivision on the
northwest. To the north of the Airport, the Planning Area extends to Sinsheimer School
and Edgewood Drive in the City of San Luis Obispo. To the southeast and east, the
boundary of the Planning Area is close to the ridgeline of the high terrain." Safety Area
S -2 is the outermost safety zone and should be the equivalent of Zone 6 in the Handbook.
The size, configuration and land use criteria of Safety Area S -2 should be consistent with
Zone 6, and not based on a Planning Area established by the ALUC in 1977. Caltrans
has provided no further clarity or factual technical detail as to the basis of its support for
the ALUP safety zones. Notwithstanding these facts, at this time the City is choosing to
accept the currently defined safety zones from the ALUP, but allow land uses and
densities that are consistent with the State Aeronautics Act with guidance from the
Handbook as specified in LUCE policies and the related AOZ for limited areas of the
City within the ALUP boundary. Nonetheless, the City will work with the ALUC during
its ongoing ALUP update.
11. Page 2, Finding 17: "Finding 17 states the policies and programs in the City's LUCE and
implementing zoning regulations do not replace or usurp the ALUC's authority, because
the LUCE policies and programs only apply within the city limits. This finding is
inaccurate. It is The Division's opinion that the proposed LUCE and implementing zoning
regulations do, in fact, usurp the ALUC's authority. The ALUC's authority is not only
over county land but also covers City lands around the airports in the County of San Luis
Obispo."
Response 11: Although the City is proposing an overrule for the LUCE, this overrule is
consistent with state law. The ability of a local agency to overrule an ALUC
determination is contained in six separate sections of the ALUC statutes. The law
provides for the authority necessary for the City to overrule an ALUC determination.
The LUCE and implementing AOZ reflect the boundaries of the ALUP and defer to the
ALUP's standards for the Runway Protection Zone and Safety Zone S -la. The LUCE
includes land use development parameters for only a limited area covered by Safety
Zones S -lb, S -lc, and S -2 (outside of the specific plans previously determined by the
ALUC to be consistent with the ALUP) for which the City is overruling the ALUC.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 165
Exhibit C
Future changes to the General Plan, Specific Plans, or rezonings not covered by the
LUCE will be referred to the ALUC for a consistency determination in compliance with
21676 (b). The City is not undermining or usurping ALUC's authority; rather, it is simply
following state law with respect to one of the avenues available to a public agency for
land use compatibility planning around airports.
12. Pages 2 -3, Finding 18: "Finding 18 states the ALUP has safety zones that are
unnecessary or too large without justification. This finding points to the Airport
Compatibility Report prepared by the City. This report discusses information that is
found in the Handbook regarding adjustment factors to safety zones. The Handbook has
information which discusses some examples as to why an ALUC may need to adjust the
generic safety zones found in the Handbook. The ALUP includes some of these
adjustments to the safety zones. The Division has reviewed the adjustments and found
they are necessary to keeping the land around the airport safe. The Airport Compatibility
Report referenced by this overrule also indicates that the reasons why these safety zones
were adjusted do, in fact, exist. The fact that these adjustment factors exist is reason
enough for the ALUC to make these adjustments to the safety zones, and they have the
responsibility under State law to do so."
Response 12: The Compatibility Report prepared by the City simply collects the facts
and information from the County's adopted Airport Master Plan and EIR and places
those facts in context with the State Aeronautics Act in order to ensure any City land use
actions are consistent with the purpose of the Act. The findings of the Compatibility
Report are the same as those of the Master Plan, which is required to be considered by the
ALUC when preparing an update to the ALUP, but appears to have been ignored by the
ALUC. The Handbook indicates that each safety zone should be as compact as possible
(the percentage of accident points per acre, its capture rate, should be maximized). The
Handbook provides examples of different safety zone configurations to assist in the
delineation of safety zones for a given airport. The Handbook states, "While ALUCs are
not mandated to use the sample zones provided in the Handbook, they are mandated to
create zones that have easily definable geometric shapes, are as compact as possible, have
a distinct progression in the degree of risk represented, and are limited to a realistic
number (five or six should be adequate in most cases)."
The generic safety zones already take into account many of the factors common to all
airports of similar characteristics. The Handbook states, "the shapes and sizes of the
zones were established based upon mathematical analyses of the accident location data
presented in this and Appendix E. Not clearly stated in past editions, though, was that
another factor also played a part in the zone delineation and is important to acknowledge
here: flight parameters. More specifically, as an aircraft approaches for landing or
climbs out after takeoff, how is it being operated? Where is it normally flying relative to
the runway, and at what altitude? Is it flying straight and level or turning and climbing or
descending? What actions pose the greatest stress on the aircraft and greatest potential
for loss of control or fewest options for recovery if the unexpected occurs? Where are
conflicts between aircraft in flight most likely to happen and potentially create risks for
the land uses below ?"
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 166
Exhibit C
The Handbook then states that adjustments to the safety zones recommended by the
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook should be made if there are certain
physical and operational characteristics at the airport such as high terrain, roads, or non-
standard instrument approach procedures. These characteristics are summarized in Table
3A of the Handbook, which is included in this report as Appendix A, Handbook Safety
Zone Adjustment Factors. The ALUP does not specifically discuss the adjustment factors
found in Table 3A of the Handbook. There is no discussion of how topography,
geography, special flight procedures, special purpose aircraft, small aircraft using long
runways, or displaced landing thresholds warrant adjustments to the safety zones
recommended in the Handbook.
For the ALUP's S -2 safety zone, the ALUP discusses the circle -to -land instrument
approaches south of Runway 11 -29 as a consideration, however, the circling minimum
altitudes for these procedures are at standard traffic pattern altitudes- the safety risks of
which are captured in recommended use density and intensity limitations from Safety
Zone 6 in the Handbook. Even though these procedures are available and only allowed to
the south side of the airport, there are safer, straight -in instrument approaches established
by the FAA and available for both runway ends of Runway 11 -29. An analysis of the
Handbook Safety Zone Adjustment Factors for SBP was completed in the Airport
Compatibility Report. The findings indicated that no safety zone adjustments from those
recommended by the Handbook were required. The Airport Compatibility Report did not
indicate that the reasons why these safety zones were adjusted for SBP do, in fact, exist;
that statement in the CalTrans comment letter is factually inaccurate.
Caltrans has provided no further clarity or factual technical detail as to the basis of its
support for the ALUP safety zones. Regardless, at this time the City is choosing to
accept the defined safety zones from the ALUP but allow land uses and densities that are
consistent with the State Aeronautics Act with guidance from the Handbook as specified
in LUCE policies and the related AOZ for limited areas of the City within the ALUP
boundary. Nonetheless, the City will work with the ALUC during its ongoing ALUP
update.
13. Page 3, Findings 19, 20 and 21: "Findings 19, 20, and 21 contain information about the
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan and the forecasts contained
in this document. These findings discuss how the recession has caused a downturn in the
operations at the airport. Because of this downturn, the findings discuss the TAF
approved by the FAA should be used instead. The Division would like to point out that
the TAP for SBP are flat line projections and not realistic. The best forecasts to use are
those provided by the SBP Master Plan."
Response 13: Caltrans misstates the City's finding in this comment. The City's finding
provides background operational facts for context and then concludes, "Thus, the Master
Plan forecast and associated noise contours form a conservative base of information to
use when considering long term compatibility of land uses through the LUCE update."
The City, the ALUC and Caltrans all agree that the ALUC is required to use the Master
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 167
Exhibit C
Plan and the forecasts contained in the document along with the EIR analysis of any
impacts based on recommended development in the AMP.
14. Page 3, Finding 37: "Finding 37 says that an analysis of the Handbook safety zone
adjustment factors was completed for SBP in Section 4.3 of the Airport Compatibility
Report, and the findings indicate that no safety zone adjustments from those
recommended by the Handbook are required. The following is the Division's response to
the analysis of the Safety Zone Adjustment Factors was completed for SBP by a private
consultant hired by the City of San Luis Obispo. The Division found six out of the eight
consistently inaccurate aeronautical assumptions below, to indicate a desired outcome of
"no safety zone adjustments required" from those recommended by the Handbook for
each of the following bullet points:"
Response 14: While the Division disagrees with six out of the eight findings in the
Airport Compatibility Report regarding Table 3A in the Handbook, it should be noted
that the ALUC did not adjust its safety zones based on the recommendations in Table 3A
of the Handbook. ALUP Section 4.4.3, Delineation of Safety Areas, states the
considerations of primary importance:
"a. The flight paths most heavily utilized by aircraft departing from or
approaching to land at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport — Flight
paths utilized by a relatively high proportion of arriving or departing aircraft are
associated with an increased accident risk. b. The flight paths utilized by aircraft
departing from or approaching to land at the San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport during adverse weather conditions — Maintaining control of an aircraft in
conditions that make visualization of the horizon and the ground impossible is one
of the most challenging tasks that a pilot can face. Flight paths which have been
designated by the Federal Aviation Administration for use during reduced -
visibility conditions, therefore, are of significant concern to the ALUC. c. The
anticipated altitude of aircraft operations — A critical operational element in
ensuring the safety of persons and property on the ground is the ability of the pilot
of a disabled airplane to avoid impact with inhabited structures. The likelihood of
the pilot accomplishing this is directly related to the time and gliding distance
available, and both of these are dependent on the aircraft's altitude at the time a
malfunction occurs."
There is no discussion of how topography, geography, special flight procedures, special
purpose aircraft, small aircraft using long runways, or displaced landing thresholds
warrant adjustments to the safety zones recommended in the Handbook. There is only
discussion in the ALUP's Section 4.4.3 and subsequent Section 4.4.4 (Delineation of
Aviation Safety Sub - Areas) on considerations surrounding flight maneuvers, which the
Handbook's generic safety zones already take into account. The Handbook states, "the
shapes and sizes of the zones were established based upon mathematical analyses of the
accident location data presented in this and Appendix E. Not clearly stated in past
editions, though, was that another factor also played a part in the zone delineation and is
important to acknowledge here: flight parameters. More specifically, as an aircraft
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 168
Exhibit C
approaches for landing or climbs out after takeoff, how is it being operated? Where is it
normally flying relative to the runway, and at what altitude? Is it flying straight and level
or turning and climbing or descending? What actions pose the greatest stress on the
aircraft and greatest potential for loss of control or fewest options for recovery if the
unexpected occurs? Where are conflicts between aircraft in flight most likely to happen
and potentially create risks for the land uses below ?" The City strongly disagrees with
the Division's assertion that the analysis presented in the Airport Compatibility Report of
Table 3A in the Handbook and the City's overrule is "contrary to PUC section 21670,
and... will fail to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and create a
disorderly expansion of the airport." Both the City and Consultant that prepared the
Airport Compatibility Report spent a great deal of time ensuring that all Federal, State,
and local laws and guidance material was followed, including: FAA AC 150/5070 -613,
Airport Master Plans, FAA AC 150/5300 -13A, Airport Design (2012), Federal Aviation
Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (1993), FAR Part 150,
Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program, FAA AC 150/5020 -1, Noise Control and
Compatibility Planning for Airports (1983), FAA AC 150 - 5190 -4A, A Model Zoning
Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects around Airports (1987), FAA Order 8260.313
(June, 2009), the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011), and Sections
5001 to 5037, 21661 to 21669.6, and 21670 to 21679.5 of the California Public Utilities
Code. The recommendations in the Airport Compatibility Report and LUCE Update
follow precisely the recommended development in the Airport Master Plan, the FAA -
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the forecasts in the Airport Master Plan, the noise
contours presented in the EA/EIR, guidance in the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook on the delineation of safety zones and land use policies that best protect
persons and property in the vicinity of airports, and review of local conditions.
While the City continues to question the dimensions of the ALUP safety zones, due to
the time sensitive nature of the LUCE Update, the City is willing to accept the ALUP's
geographical boundaries of its existing safety zones and for the time being is overruling
only the ALUP's land use policies, specifically with regards to ALUP Zones S -2 so that
the land use criteria are more consistent with Zone 6 — Traffic Pattern of the California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and criteria, and limited areas of S 1 -b
and S -lc outside of specific plans previously determined to be consistent with the ALUP
by the ALUC. The City hopes that the ALUC will work with the City on its update of the
ALUP. The City also hopes the ALUC will consider all of the discrepancies in its current
ALUP, as pointed out in the Airport Compatibility Report, so that the next ALUP is more
consistent with the policies recommended by the Handbook.
15. Page 3, Finding 37, Airport Area Topography: "The presence of high terrain, the edge of
a precipice, or other such features may influence the location of aircraft traffic patterns
and should be considered.
Consultant states: High terrain exists in the area of SBP but does not impede the standard
traffic pattern or preclude precision and non - precision instrument approaches and
departures. Nearby Morro Bay (MQO) VOR provides positive course guidance, positive
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 169
Exhibit C
terrain avoidance and aircraft holding for precision and non - precision instrument
procedure missed approaches. No safety zone adjustments required.
Division's Response: This is contrary to PUC section 21670, as the City's overrule will
fail to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and create a disorderly
expansion of the airport. The airport has rising terrain in all directions, but predominantly
to the north and south. The terrain contributes to changes in flight paths on the right
downwind for runway 29 (Islay Hill), causing aircraft to fly a downwind outside the hill
while avoiding higher terrain to the north. Our interpretation is that these factors meet the
condition set forth in Table 3A: Safety Zone Adjustment Factors contained in the
Handbook to warrant a safety zone adjustment."
Response 15: The terrain does not change the flight path on the right downwind for
Runway 29. While aircraft do fly a downwind outside Islay Hill, this is not outside the
FAA's recommendations for a standard air traffic pattern. Standard traffic patterns are
typically flown to the left 1,000 feet above airport elevation, and approximately a'' /z mile
to 1 mile out from the landing runway. At airports with air traffic control towers (such as
at SBP), the tower often instructs the pilot to enter the pattern at any point or straight -in
for landing. Figure 10 in the ALUP, Aircraft Flight Paths, illustrates the typical flight
patterns flown at SBP. The arrival and departure tracks used for EA/EIR noise modeling
also show typical flight patterns to the right and left of Runway 11/29. The distance from
the runway is not increased or decreased to avoid any terrain; the altitudes above airport
elevation are also not adjusted for terrain.
16. Page 3 and 4, Finding 37, Boundaries Based on Geographic Features: "Safety zone
shapes and sizes might be adjusted in response to existing urban development such as
roads, water courses, parcel lines, etc.
Consultant states: With the advent of graphic information systems (GIS) this approach is
less necessary than in years past. The City and County of San Luis Obispo employ GIS
for accurate mapping purposes. No safety zone adjustments required.
Division's Response: This is contrary to PUC section 21670, as the City's overrule will
fail to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and create a disorderly
expansion of the airport. Pilots operating in the vicinity of an airport often use key visual
landmarks for position reporting. Alignment of safety zones with key geographic features
may create greater containment of certain types of flight operations within a given area.
This type of "intuitive" design, used for clarity of reference by all stakeholders, and
especially, airborne pilots, is permissible in Table 3A: Safety Zone Adjustment Factors
contained in the Handbook and allows for a safety zone adjustment."
Response 16: The response by Caltrans on this comment is in direct contradiction to all
modern land use planning, Caltrans guidance in the Handbook and Caltrans own
investment in similar systems throughout all of its districts in the State (as led by District
11) that take full advantage of GIS systems to ensure accurate mapping of land use
among many important functions. Accurate mapping of land use restrictions and impacts
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 170
Exhibit C
ensures that valuable land resources are not unnecessarily encumbered by restrictions that
are not clearly delineated so that the public can make informed land use decisions based
upon actual facts and information. The Master Plan fully researched aircraft flight
patterns approaching and departing San Luis Obispo Airport. This information provides
clear areas of operation that allow for equally clear application of safety zone operational
parameters explicitly detailed in Handbook Pages 4 -20 to 4 -25.
In addition, the LUCE update, by focusing on future infill within the urban reserve line,
preserves visual clues for approaching aircraft. The existing state and federal highways
and major local roadways that help define the city's form — Highway 101, Highway 1,
State Route 227, Los Osos Valley road, Foothill Blvd., and Buckley Road to the south of
the airport — will not change. The city's existing greenbelt and policies to preserve the
open space directly around the airport and outside of the urban reserve line have been
reaffirmed and strengthened through the LUCE update process.
17. Page 4, Finding 37, Instrument Approach Procedures: Non - standard instrument
procedures should be identified, as well as the extent to which they are used.
Consultant states: Circling Approaches: Circling approaches are charted for SBP
including RNA V (GPS) RWY 11, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, LOC RWY 11 and VOR or
TACAN -A but no circling north of Runway 11 -29 is allowed for any of these procedures.
The circling minimum altitudes for these procedures are at standard traffic pattern
altitudes. Even though these procedures are available, there are safer, straight -in
approaches available for both runway ends of Runway 11 -29. No safety zone adjustments
required. Non - Precision Approaches at Low Altitudes: Non - precision instrument
approaches are chatted for SBP including RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, RNAV (GPS) RWY
293 LOC RWY 11 and VOR or TACAN -A, but the minimum descent altitudes for these
procedures preclude descending below standard traffic pattern altitudes within the airport
influence area. No safety zone adjustments required. Non - Precision Approaches Not
Aligned with the Runway: One non - precision instrument approach charted for SBP
(VOR or T ACAN -A) is not aligned with a runway, but no circling north of Runway 1I-
29 is allowed for this procedure. The circling minimum altitudes for this procedure are at
or above standard traffic pattern altitudes. Even though this procedure is available, there
are safer, straight -in approaches available for both runway ends of Runway 11 -29. No
safety zone adjustments required.
Division's Response: This is contrary to PUC section 21670, as the City's overrule will
fail to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and create a disorderly
expansion of the airport. Air traffic control tower staff estimates utilizing Runway 11
about 30 percent of the time, with the remaining 70 percent being a west flow on Runway
29. Control tower staff report that instrument approach procedures are utilized about 60
percent GPS Runway 29, 30 percent ILS Runway 11, with the remaining 10 percent on
the VOR -A. Circling approaches are used much less frequently than straight in
procedures. Although the vast majority of aircraft arrive on Visual Approaches during
clear weather and west flow line up to land on Runway 29, circling and non - aligned
approaches exist at this airport. The argument that the minimums are above traffic pattern
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 171
Exhibit C
does account for the possibility of loss of visual contact with the runway while an aircraft
is engaged in a visual descent to land on a non - aligned runway in a low visibility
environment. Our interpretation is that these factors meet the condition set forth in Table
3A: Safety Zone Adjustment Factors contained in the Handbook to warrant a safety zone
adjustment."
Response 17: This statement by Caltrans offers no new information about these
procedures that is not covered in the Master Plan or that points to any degradation of
safety as a result of their use beyond that studied and stated in the Airport Compatibility
Report. Simply because a type of procedure exists or is in use does not by itself change
the risk profile or safety setting of the operation for the surrounding community. The
caution in the Handbook Table 3A is specifically for airports where only one straight -in
approach procedure is available to the airport (See Handbook, Page 3 -22). This is clearly
not the case at SBP as described fully in the Airport Compatibility Report and reiterated
in the Caltrans letter. The purpose of the Airport Compatibility Report is to specifically
research and address operational issues at San Luis Obispo Airport that could degrade a
level of safety in the community that is assumed in standard operations and accounted for
in safety zones designed to address actual safety risks and their potential consequences.
18. Page 5, Finding 37, Other Special Flight Procedures or Limitations: "Single -sided traffic
patterns, nearby airports, high terrain, or noise - sensitive land uses may dictate where and
at what altitude aircraft fly and may need to be taken into account during safety zone
delineation.
Consultant states: Voluntary noise abatement procedures are established for SBP but
when used, increase aircraft altitudes and increase safe operating altitudes. No safety
zone adjustments required.
Division's Response: This is contrary to PUC section 21670, as the City's overrule will
fail to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and create a disorderly
expansion of the airport. Recommended noise abatement procedures may cause aircraft to
fly extended upwind and downwind segments to remain over roads or avoid schools. Our
interpretation is that this factor meets the condition set forth in Table 3A: Safety Zone
Adjustment Factors contained in the Handbook to warrant a safety zone adjustment."
Response 18: This statement by Caltrans offers no new information about noise
abatement procedures that is not covered in the Master Plan or points to any degradation
of safety as a result of their use beyond that studied and stated in the Airport
Compatibility Report. Simply because a type of procedure exists or is in use does not by
itself change the risk profile or safety setting of the operation for the surrounding
community. As stated in the Airport Compatibility Report, the voluntary noise abatement
procedures at San Luis Obispo remind pilots to fly proper standard arrival and departure
procedures. Further, these noise abatement procedures tend to keep aircraft on the
Runway 11/29 centerlines extended and most closely align with the safety risk profiles of
the Caltrans safety zones. These procedures specifically request that pilots not overfly
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 172
Exhibit C
Los Ranchos Elementary School in the unincorporated County area to the south of the
airport thereby reducing the safety risk on this sensitive community land use.
19. Page 5, Finding 37, Runway Use by Special Purpose Aircraft: "Fire attack, agricultural,
military airplanes, and helicopters often have their own flight procedures, which need to
be considered during the shaping of safety zones.
Consultant states: Military transport-type aircraft and helicopters make use of the SBP
runways. Military aircraft fly standard arrival and departure procedures and helicopters
likewise fly standard procedures for approach, departure, and closed traffic patterns. No
safety zone adjustments required.
Division's Response: This is contrary to PUC section 21670, as the City's overrule will
fail to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and create a disorderly
expansion of the airport. San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport frequently has
operations by military (fixed -wing and rotorcraft), law enforcement, and other special
purpose aircraft. While these aircraft typically fly standard patterns and procedures the
airframe type, load configuration, and approach speeds may dictate the use of a unique
flight path "at a moment's notice" as determined by each pilot -in- command while their in-
flight aircraft are in -bound or outbound to the airport. Our interpretation is that this factor
meets the condition set forth in Table 3A: Safety Zone Adjustment Factors contained in
the Handbook to warrant a safety zone adjustment."
Response 19: This statement by Caltrans offers no new information about special use
aircraft that is not covered in the Master Plan or points to any degradation of safety as a
result of their use beyond that studied and stated in the Airport Compatibility Report.
Simply because a type of procedure exists or is in use does not by itself change the risk
profile or safety setting of the operation for the surrounding community. As stated in the
Airport Compatibility Report, the Handbook Table 3A guides planners to investigate if
special purpose aircraft have their own procedures for a particular airport, and based upon
the level of usage, there may need to be consideration in the shaping of safety zones. As
stated by Caltrans in their letter and as found in the Airport Compatibility Report, the
very limited use of special purpose aircraft (in 2013 military aircraft accounted for
approximately 1.2 percent of all aircraft operations) fly standard patterns and procedures.
20. Page 5 and 6, Finding 37, Displaced Landing Thresholds:
"Consultant states: Runway 11 has a displaced threshold of 800 feet and Runway 29 has
a displaced threshold of 500 feet. The safety zones have not been adjusted to reduce their
length commensurate with these displaced thresholds thereby increasing the safety factor
for each runway. Safety Zone Reduction Possible.
Division's Response: Although the Handbook's Landing Aircraft Accident Location
Pattern Zones would be pulled back closer into the airport due to this airport having
displaced thresholds, however, the Take -off Aircraft Accident Location Pattern Zone
would remain unchanged. The 83,000+ aircraft operations count at this airport, most on
Runway 29 and Runway 11, would not be of a low enough count to warrant pulling back
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 173
Exhibit C
any runway safety protection zones. According to the National Transportation Safety
Board, since 1990, there have been 37 aircraft accidents at or nearby San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport, and 8 have resulted in fatalities. Protecting people and property
on the ground from the potential consequences of near - airport aircraft accidents is a
fundamental land use compatibility - planning objective. While the chance of an aircraft
injuring someone on the ground is historically quite low, an aircraft accident is a high
consequence event. To protect people and property on the ground from the risks of near-
airport aircraft accidents, some form of restrictions on land use are essential. The two
principal methods for reducing the risk of injury and property damage on the ground are
to limit the number of persons in an area and to limit the area covered by occupied
structures."
Response 20: First, it is unclear the source of Caltrans operational information stated in
their letter. San Luis Obispo had a total of 68,573 aircraft operations in 2013. Second,
the City is not suggesting that the RPZ should be changed. Instead, it is simply noted in
the Airport Compatibility Report that the RPZs as depicted in the FAA - approved Airport
Layout Plan (ALP) are based upon the displaced thresholds for both runway ends. These
changes to the runway have not been incorporated into the existing ALUP. Moreover, a
review of accident data at SBP shows that accidents have predominantly occurred, where
predicted, within the safety zones shown in the Handbook.
21. Page 6, Paragraph 2: According to the National Transportation Safety Board, since 1990,
there have been 37 aircraft accidents at or nearby San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport, and 8 have resulted in fatalities. Protecting people and property on the ground
from the potential consequences of near - airport aircraft accidents is a fundamental land
use compatibility - planning objective. While the chance of an aircraft injuring someone on
the ground is historically quite low, an aircraft accident is a high consequence event. To
protect people and property on the ground from the risks of near - airport aircraft
accidents, some form of restriction on land use are essential. The two principal methods
for reducing the risk of injury and property damage on the ground are to limit the number
of persons in an area and to limit the area covered by occupied structures.
Response 21: The City's Airport Compatibility Report provides a complete analysis of
aircraft accidents and incidents at San Luis Obispo Airport and in the airport vicinity
from 1982 to present. The methodology for this review of accidents followed the same
methodology as used for the Handbook Appendix E analysis and criteria. Of the
accidents investigated by the NTSB, none involved fatalities of people on the ground.
The LUCE update and accompanying AOZ reflect Caltrans guidance for appropriate use,
density, and intensity limitations for the limited areas of Safety Zone S1 -b, S1 -c and S -2
outside of the specific plans areas previously determined to be consistent with the ALUP
by the ALUC.
22. Page 6, Paragraph 3: The State Aeronautics Act requires the overruling of an ALUC by a
two - thirds vote, a mandated process that shall be followed. Attached hereto are letters
from the California Fair Political Practice Commission (FPPC) that prohibit certain
Council members from voting on the subject over rule based on a conflict of interest. We
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 174
Exhibit C
will defer to the FPPC's letter, without formulating conclusions. Also, we do understand
that recently, the FPPC regulations may have changed; however, we feel that the
conclusion by the FPPC will remain the same. Based on this, the Division believes that
the City has not complied with the two - thirds voting requirement to proceed with this
overrule.
Response 22:
The LUCE update has been an involved community process with Council endorsement
and direction informing the process at key decision points. The project description,
which includes the physical land use changes in addition to policy changes to guide
future development, was endorsed for EIR evaluation unanimously by the City Council.
Due to potential conflicts of interest on site - specific land uses outside of the ALUP
boundaries and the need to segment those final decisions once the EIR had been certified,
two Council members recused themselves from voting on the initial decision to provide
notice of intent to overrule. This initial action was passed unanimously by the three
remaining Council members and was required to reserve the City's right to consider the
LUCE physical and policy changes through a formal action to overrule. This process has
complied with Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) that states, "At least 45 days prior
to the decision to overrule the commission [emphasis added], the local agency governing
body shall provide the commission and the division a copy of the proposed decision and
findings. The commission and the division may provide comments to the local agency
governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings..... The
comments provided by the division or the commission are advisory to the local agency
governing body. The local agency governing body shall include comments from the
commission and the division in the public record of any final decision to overrule the
commission, which may only be adopted by a two - thirds vote of the governing body."
The City has complied with the provisions of the Public Utilities Code explicitly by
providing initial findings to Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and the ALUC in
compliance with Section 21676(b) on August 22, 2014 and August 20, 2014 respectively
— 60 days in advance of the City Council hearing to take final action on the LUCE
update. The final action by the City Council will comply with Public Utilities Code
requirements for overrule and with the State Attorney General ruling No. 91 -502 which
states, "A two - thirds vote of the entire membership of a city council is not required to
override an adverse determination made by an airport land use commission concerning
the city's proposed amendment of its general plan; a two - thirds vote of the members
constituting a quorum is sufficient to override the determination." This latter ruling is
also referenced in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook on page 5 -15
under section 5.5.1.
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 175 Exhibit C
* * * * * ** *End of Response * * * * * * **
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 176
Exhibit C
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEMORANDUM REGARDING LUCE OVERRULE PROCESS
To: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo
From: Lori Ballance, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Re: Public Memorandum Regarding Statutory Framework to Overrule ALUC
Decisions
Date: October 10, 2014
I. INTRODUCTION
At staff request, I provide this memo as a summary of the statutory framework governing the
overrule process and how the City's proposed LUCE Update /AOZ and supporting findings
comply with statutory requirements and acknowledge and address the comments provided by
CalTrans and the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).
As required by statute, the City provided proposed findings to support its potential overrule of
the ALUC's determination that the City's LUCE Update and Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) is
inconsistent with the currently adopted Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). In response to those
proposed findings, both CalTrans Division of Aeronautics and the ALUC provided comments,
which the staff has considered and in response to which modifications to the initial LUCE /AOZ
adoption have been proposed.
With respect to inconsistencies between the ALUP and LUCE Update /AOZ policies relating to
land use and density /intensity standards, once an ALUP has been prepared and approved, the
statutory framework recognizes that the local public agency, in this case the City, is the
appropriate body balance multiple priorities, such as open space preservation, housing needs, and
economics, among other factors, in decisions involving general plans and related ordinances. The
state law is clear that local agencies have the ability to undertake land use, cost - benefit and
related analyses and can ultimately overrule ALUP policies if the environmental, policy and /or
economic costs of limiting development as contemplated in an ALUP prove to be too great or if
the public agency finds that there is a greater "public good" in deviating from the ALUP policies
with respect to land use, density and intensity requirements. In order to implement such a policy
decision, the agency must make certain findings in accordance with the Public Utilities Code.
The State Aeronautics Act is set up in a manner that provides a balanced approach to permitting
ALUCs to adopt policies broadly designed to protect and expand airports, while preserving the
discretion of the local agencies to consider and address potential public good, costs and other
factors pertinent to their jurisdictions with respect to implementation of the ALUP policies.
II. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK TO OVERRULE ALUC DECISIONS
The State Aeronautics Act provides for local agencies to overrule ALUC decisions on land use
matters and airport master plans. The overruling process involves four mandatory steps:
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 177
Exhibit C
Attachment A
(1) At least 45 days prior to any decision to overrule the ALUC, the City must provide the
ALUC and the Division of Aeronautics a copy of the proposed decision and findings;
(2) The City must hold a public hearing;
(3) The City must make specific findings that the action proposed is consistent with the
purposes of the ALUC statute; and
(4) The City must approve the proposed action by a two - thirds vote of the agency's governing
body. See, e.g., Public Utilities Code Sections 21675.1(d), 21676, 21676.5(a).
The requirement for the City to make findings in conjunction with a decision to overrule and
ALUC inconsistency finding is included in six separate sections of the ALUC statutes. In each
case, the law provides that the findings must show that the proposed local agency action "is
consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670." Therefore, in order for the
City to overrule an ALUC decision, the City must document the basis for the overruling action
related directly to the purposes for which the ALUC statutes were adopted. The purpose of the
findings is to assure that the Council has thoughtfully considered its proposed actions in the
context of the purpose of the Aeronautics Act and is acting in compliance with state law.
California law is quite specific with respect to the process by which a local agency may proceed
with an action to overrule an ALUC determination that a proposed plan or project is inconsistent
with an adopted Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Any such action must be accompanied by
specific findings of fact supported by substantial evidence.
Section 21670(a) establishes legislative findings that it is in the best interest of the public to
provide for the orderly development of.
a. "...each public use airport in this state ...."
b. "...the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and
objectives of the California noise standards..." and
c. "...the area surrounding these airports ... to prevent the creation of new noise and
safety problems."
In that context, the statute provides that its purpose is "...to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare by ensuring..."
a. "...the orderly expansion of airport ...."
b. "by ...the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to
excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the
extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
To ensure compliance with statutory requirements regarding its findings and the factual basis for
those findings the City has relied on data developed via an airport land use compatibility report
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series) Exhibit C
Page 178 Attachment A
from its consultant Nick Johnson of Johnson Aviation. I have reviewed the compatibility report
and the City's findings based thereon and conclude that the City's findings and the analytical
basis on which they rely demonstrate that the LUCE Update would indeed be consistent with the
purposes of the Aeronautics Act.
The City's Findings Establish That The LUCE Update Provides for Orderly Development of
the Airport
The City's findings and supporting documents, including, but not limited to the EIR and Nick
Johnson's Airport Compatibility Report, document the following, consistent with statutory
requirements:
- How the City has considered the long range development plans that exist for the airport.
- How the City plans to support development of the airport over at least the next 20 years.
- How the City's planning and zoning actions would serve to protect the approaches to the
airport runways.
The City's Findings Establish That the LUCE Update and the AOZ Minimize Public Exposure
to Noise and Safety Hazards
The law's purpose is to minimize excessive noise and safety hazards. In order to adopt a finding
demonstrating consistency with this purpose, the City first determined whether the existing noise
exposure or safety hazards are excessive.
- In areas where the existing noise and safety hazards are not excessive, the actions taken
by the City prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems.
- In areas where the existing exposure is excessive, the City' findings and supporting
documents show how its action in overruling the ALUC determination of inconsistency
nonetheless minimizes additional exposure to those noise and safety concerns that have
been identified.
- The City's findings and supporting documents also show the extent to which land uses in
the area in question are already incompatible with airport operations, and how the City's
action to overrule would not create a new incompatible use, or would not expose
additional persons or property to noise and safety hazards associated with existing
compatible uses.
With respect to safety, the City's findings refer to both the land use and safety elements of the
general plan. The City's findings and supporting documents:
- Document any inconsistencies between the proposed LUCE Update and safety
compatibility criteria in the ALUC compatibility plan;
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series)
Page 179
Exhibit C
Attachment A
- Describe the measures taken to assure that risks — both to people and property on the
ground and to the occupants of aircraft — associated with the City's land use proposals are
held to a minimum; and
- Indicate that the proposed land use action falls within a level of acceptable risk
considered to be a community norm.
As it relates to noise, the City's findings establish the relationship of the LUCE and the AOZ to
California noise standards. The state airport noise standards are set forth in Title 21 of the
California Code of Regulations. These standards are "designed to cause the airport proprietor,
aircraft operator, local governments, pilots and the [Department of Transportation] to work
cooperatively to diminish noise problems."
In addressing the question of consistency of the proposed LUCE Update with the state noise
standards, the City has, as required, referred specifically to content of the noise element of its
general plan. Section 65302(g) of the Government Code requires community general plans to
include a noise element. This element is required to describe the community noise environment
in terms of both near and long -term noise exposure contours for various noise sources. The
airport is among the noise sources that are considered in the noise element. The City's findings
and supporting documents:
- Document and resolve any inconsistencies between noise element policies and noise
compatibility criteria in the ALUC compatibility plan; Show how noise element policies
will assure conformance with the state airport noise standards; and
- Identify any measures to be incorporated into local development to mitigate existing and
foreseeable airport noise problems.
In summary, the City's findings document and explain how the proposed LUCE Update is
consistent with the purposes stated in Section 21670. The City's findings are divided into four
areas of concern related to land use near the airport: safety, overflight, noise and airspace
protection. The findings demonstrate that noise and safety hazards affecting proposed
development are minimal or have been mitigated. The findings are also supported by substantial
evidence. The findings refer to relevant data, information, and guidelines, including data and
information from sources prepared by Nick Johnson, an aviation professional with expertise in
airport land use planning, information from the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook,
and noise data developed by Johnson Aviation.
III. CALTRANS DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS RESPONSE TO DRAFT FINDINGS AND LEGAL
RECOMMENDATIONS IN RESPONSE TO CALTRANS' RESPONSE
As indicated above, prior to the City overruling the ALUC inconsistency determination, the City
was required to provide the local ALUC and Division of Aeronautics with a copy of the
proposed decision and findings at least 45 days in advance of any overrule decision and include
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series) Exhibit C
Page 180 Attachment A
any comments from the local ALUC and Division of Aeronautics in the final record of decision.
Pub.Util.Code 21676, 21676.5, 21677. Consistent with this requirement, the City provided draft
findings on its proposed overrule to the ALUC and Division of Aeronautics for review and
comment.
The City recently received comment letters from both the Division of Aeronautics and the local
ALUC responding to the City's proposed overrule and draft findings. Although the
inconsistencies between the draft LUCE Update and the ALUP relate to both the designation of
safety compatibility zones as well as the allowance of certain land uses at density /intensity levels
that differ from the ALUP policies, the Division of Aeronautics comment letter focuses primarily
on the inconsistencies relating to the proposed LUCE Update's designated safety compatibility
zones. City staff and consultants have prepared a point by point response to both the ALUC and
Division's comment letters; therefore, this memorandum does not provide a response to each
issue identified in these comment letters.
However in light of the Division's stated concerns regarding the draft findings relating to the
City's proposed revised safety compatibility zones, and the Division's clear written support for
the ALUP's safety compatibility zones, staff has made certain minor revisions to the LUCE
Update (and airport overlay zone,) which acknowledge the ALUP's existing safety compatibility
zones, without accepting their accuracy, but do not propose to redraw or replace the safety zones
with City drawn boundaries. As a practical matter, the proposed LUCE Update and AOZ largely
mirror and propose to incorporate the land use restrictions in those zones located nearest airport
runways and approaches. In fact, the Division of Aeronautics seemingly endorses the City's
approach to relying on the noise contours provided in the Airport Master Plan in order to ensure
that the LUCE Update land use compatibility policies for residential uses are consistent with
future plans at the Airport. Thus, staff has proposed a revised approach to LUCE /AOZ
implementation, which would result in only a focused overrule of certain land use restrictions in
three of the existing ALUP safety zones, along with adoption of policies, programs and
regulations to ensure public health and safety, orderly expansion of the airport and its
surrounding areas, and the application of reasonable noise standards and restrictions consistent
with the purposes of the Aeronautics Act where greater land use density /intensity could be
permissible.
IV. EXAMPLES OF OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY OVERRULES
The sole responsibility of ALUCs is to prevent incompatible land use development and thereby
both protect the public from noise and risks and preserve the utility of airports. In contrast, when
making land use decisions, counties and cities have other issues to contend with besides airport
compatibility. Although overruling an ALUC decision of inconsistency requires special steps,
local jurisdictions sometimes will make this effort if they feel it is in their community's best
interest to do so. In some cases, the overrules may be necessary when the ALUC has not
Resolution No. 10585 (2014 Series) Exhibit C
Page 181 Attachment A
maintained the integrity of the compatibility planning objectives set forth in the Aeronautics Act.
Some examples of recent overrules include the following:
- July 2014 — City of Newport Beach approved a General Plan land use element
amendment project (citywide) which required an overrule of the Orange County ALUC's
inconsistency determination.
- May 2013 — City of Hayward approved an overrule of the Alameda County ALUC with
respect to its 2040 General Plan Update concerning policies relating to infill development
and nonconforming uses.
- 2010 — City of Santa Clara approved a 2010 -2035 General Plan Update which required an
overrule of the ALUC's inconsistency determination with respect to uses and densities in
the General Plan Update.
2008 — City of Sacramento approved a 2030 General Plan which required an overrule of
the ALUC's inconsistency determination in connection with certain areas of the GP.
- 2008 — City of Perris approved a General Plan which required an overrule of the ALUC's
inconsistency determination.
Generally, it appears that courts are reluctant to strike down public agency overrules if the
findings adequately demonstrate the public agencies method of analyzing facts, regulations and
policies and the rationale for making its overrule decision based on the facts involved and
consistent with the requirements of Section 21670 of the State Aeronautics Act. In summary, as
long as the essential substance of the findings which accompany the public agency overruling of
the ALUC's inconsistency decision demonstrates that the proposed action is consistent with the
purposes of the statutes as set forth in Section 21670, it appears that courts will uphold public
agency overrules.
V. Conclusion
Essentially then, through the process of developing the proposed LUCE amendments, the City
has determined that factors perhaps not considered by the ALUC when adopting the
compatibility policies must be taken into account, which require different land use and
intensity /density levels than those provided by the ALUP policies. The City has demonstrated
that, in order to meet its local land use requirements and implement its desired policy direction,
deviations from the density /intensity or other requirements of the ALUP policies are required. In
reaching that conclusion, the City has developed a record demonstrating that the deviations from
the ALUP policies can be accomplished while complying with the purposes specified in Section
21670(a) in the State Aeronautics Act, most importantly the protection of public health and
safety. Accordingly, the City's proposed course of action is legally and analytically sound and
supported by substantial evidence, including evidence of thoughtful consideration of and
response to the comments submitted by CalTrans and the ALUC.