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!
|
