Peg Pinard, Former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo, Former Chairperson, SLO County Board of  Supervisors, and Former Pilot

Creating a Permanent UPROAR

by Peg Pinard

Imagine being in the position of planning for something and being able to have the benefit of learning from other's mistakes. Wouldn't this be a great opportunity to "do it right"? Now, imagine elected officials deciding, instead, to just make the same mistakes all over again. Well, you don't have to imagine, for this is exactly what is happening with San Luis Obispo's Regional Airport as the SLO City Council wants to override the safety zones of the county's Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).

There are four main areas of concern: safety, liability, noise, and the airport's future?

Safety

One of the county airport commission's main jobs is maintaining a safety zone around the airport. Take-offs and landings are the most dangerous times for planes and where accidents are most likely to occur. Requiring airplanes to make steep, sharp turns to avoid ‘sensitive' areas developed inappropriately close to or in airport safety zones puts everyone in danger. We have seen accidents in these corridors as was stated in a 9/17/2014 letter to the SLO City Council. Ron Bollard, Aviation Planner with the Department of Transportation - Division of Aeronautics, said "According to the National Transportation Safety Board, since 1990, there have been 37 aircraft accidents at or nearby San Luis County Regional Airport, and 8 have resulted in fatalities."

Mr. Bollard went on to say: "Protecting people and property on the ground from the potential consequences of near-airport aircraft accidents is a fundamental land use compatibility-planning objective….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." Thankfully, due to ALUC's setbacks for development, the planes were able to land in a field and not on top of someone's house. These policies have been in place for decades and not allowing dense development around the airport has been a mark of wisdom - not something to be criticized.

Liability

Besides keeping those corridors available for emergencies, the existing policy of honoring the safety zones the ALUC and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) set up around the airport also keeps the city and county from assuming additional liabilities if a tragedy should occur. Deliberately overriding the commission's safety zones and putting new development, families and children in a known danger area seems like it would be putting the city and county taxpayers at huge liability risk if another accident should occur.

Rather, this is another example of a "private/public partnership" where the real estate developers will pocket the lucrative short-term profits and the liabilities are transferred to the taxpayer residents.

It has been interesting, if not disturbing, to watch some of the shenanigans going on behind the scenes: 1) the Tribune's ‘spin' on the safety issue, calling it in recent headline a "growth-limitng ruling" instead of the safety issue that it is. 2) the SLO city council majority's support of a council candidate who is presumed to also be supporting this override. 3) the Board of Supervisors appointing an individual to the ALUC who has already decided that he agrees with the city overriding the very commission to which he was just appointed (ostensibly to serve the "public's" interest) and who is invested in a company that represents many of the developers in the airport area

Noise

As Bert Forbes, a San Luis Obispo resident and founder of Ziatech (an applied computing solutions supplier and manufacturer) recently stated in a letter to the SLO City Council (10/20/14): "Just because the airport was already there when one buys a house under the flight path doesn't stop homeowners fro m complaining, even if they have signed a waiver. San Luis Obispo Airport has numerous complains from neighbors already. How much more time and County effort will be spent if the City of SLO allows more housing?" Time and time again, we see headlines such as "Unfriendly skies: Residents, city official gear up to fight increased airplane noise" as was recently published in a Palo Alto newspaper (10/24/14).

The problem with allowing new real estate development next to the airport and then trying to deal with aviation noise "after the fact" is that there really is no solution…it's too late. "Solutions" are temporary at best and often involve potentially dangerous airplane maneuvers in order to avoid ‘sensitive' areas. Even then, more flights, changes in routes, and changes in flight patterns often exacerbate the inevitable noise.

A maximum day-night average sound level (DNL) of 65 dB is considered incompatible with residential communities. It is important to pay attention to the description "day-night average" when reviewing documents reporting on sound counters or sound levels. "Average" means just that . . . it can be a lot higher/louder during the day and lower (when there are fewer flights) during the night and you get an "average." That number may, in no way, be the noise level that residents are actually having to live with. In reports on impacts for airport noise, one will also often come across different regulatory levels for acceptable outdoor noise and another for acceptable indoor levels…such as 60 dB for outdoor and 45dB for indoor. This kind of distinction kind of baffles the mind…what happens when you open your windows?…or when your children play outside?

Interestingly, there is often no discussion of the damaging health effects of loud noise.

Future Use

The FAA clearly states that: "The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses . . . rests with the local authorities . . . (14 CFR Part 150, Table 1)." While this statement also speaks to the issue of who has the liability, it also clarifies SLO's ALUC's mission statement: "To provide for the orderly development of the areas surrounding public use airports within the county so that new developments are not likely ultimately to cause restrictions to be place on flight operation to or from the airport."

The ALUC's mission includes: "To provide for the orderly development of the areas surrounding public use airports within the county so that new developments are not likely ultimately to cause restriction to be place on flight operations to or from the airport."

As Bert Forbes also said: "Having housing in the flight paths of airplanes produces many complaints from the population living there, and ultimately lead to much ill will and discussion about closing the airport or severely restricting operations. Since the airport is a vital part of the SLO economy…any restrictions would be bad for the community. From the 2005 Airport Master Plan, Appendix D. Table B1 Summary of Economic Benefits FY 2003: $142M revenue; $38.3M earnings; and 1541 employment. The numbers will likely be higher today."

San Luis Obispo City relies quite heavily on the benefits of having that airport where it is. High tech industries can receive components and get their products to market quickly because the airport is right there. It's no accident that we have been able to attract industries, like Ziatech, due, in large part, to the airport's accessibility. To override the country's airport land use commission and create a conflict that could potentially shut down our airport is tragically foolish.

Other areas like Paso Robles and Santa Maria would love to have the business and support industries that this airport generates. These airport areas exert constant effort to attract airline businesses and they have the facilities in place to be a major contender. Start putting up more obstacles to our airport's ability to operate and SLO City, and very possibly, SLO County, will be cutting their own economic throats. It would not be unreasonable for airlines to simply move their operations to Santa Maria, which already accommodates daily commuter traffic, has longer, safer runways and the most modern facilities.

We have already seen airlines leave cities due to high levels of noise complaints and other restrictions caused by encroaching development. Why would the City and County endanger the convenience and economic impact of having its own local airport? Why would any jurisdiction deliberately choose to do this to itself? Talk about short-sighted thinking!