1 From: susan bryant
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:35 PM
To: Web-City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; David Baskett; [email protected] Subject: City Council agenda item 6.1.b Santa Barbara County Association of Governments' 2023 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Attachments: 20230306_140201.jpg; Screenshot_20230531_192347_Gmail.jpg; 20230227_114834.jpg; Screenshot_ 20230531_192402_Gmail.jpg; Screenshot_20230531_192424_Gmail.jpg *** EXTERNAL EMAIL: Please use caution when opening links or attachments.*** Dear City Council Members,
I'm sending this email to you hoping to give a human, real‐life perspective to my concerns.
Santa Maria ALUCP states: "For the purpose of this ALUCP and the development of the noise and safety compatibility policies, the Santa Maria airport and the surrounding environs were classified as an urban setting. " [my emphasis]
Over a year ago, I sent Michael Becker of SBCAG an email with concerns about increased miltary flights over my working‐ class residential neighborhood on Mooncrest Lane. He said there was nothing that could be done regarding military flights and the ALUCP does not apply to land uses that already exist.
I responded that the milita
ry jet‐pilot training was a drastic change/increase in airport usage and would directly impact houses if built in the infill parcel adjacent to me. [Currently identified as parcels 39, 40, 41, and 42 or County Keysite 26.] No response.
A year later, we are back where we started: an urban airport, mili tary jet‐pilot training, and an infill lot with no safety or noise restrictions from military. All issues related to military exercises were ignored and a negative declaration adopted. [Please note, I did bring the following issues up with many over the past year.]
Noise and safety are two of the four factors ALUCP uses to deter mine compatibility. Noise from military sound‐barrier‐
breaking jets (100+ db) and safety of military jet pilots training over an urban area were not addressed. Odd to me that military flights of low, sloping, noisy approaches directly over infill parcels which did qualify as determining factors were ignored.
Noise Contours
The following statements about noise contours and CNEL charts leave me confused. At my level of understanding they do not make sense.
The noise contours in ALUCP appear to have been determined by computer modeling (not actual noise monitoring). The Airport Back
ground Data and Assumption Report states: "The noise contours used in this ALUCP update are derived from the Final EIR prepared in 2010 for the current 2004 Santa Maria Public Airport Master Plan and reflect conditions for 2017." It further states: "noise contours reflect condition at the Airport under forecasted year of 2017 conditions ... "
Conditions changed drastically in 2022, should and could have been monitored and documented, and now are not reflected. Aggregately modeled decibel (rather than actually monitored) measurements are not appropiate or enough
2 when jets can create 100+ db levels of noise which without ear protection in a residential neighborhood could cause hearing loss.
Safety and Noise
SBCAG's Santa Maria ALUCP and their CNEL contours and charts do not reference safety or specifically measure noise from flights of military planes.
In 2022 the airport bega
n to aggressively solicit and promote increased military jet‐pilot training through Central Coast Jet Center.
There are four flight approach paths to the Santa Maria Airport. The military uses two approach paths other than the main path and it appears that the ALUCP did not model or monitor activity on those paths. During 2022 and into 202 3 cargo and jet‐pilot training flew multiple low, noisy, and often frightening passes.
Proposed housing identified above is currently in the City of Santa Maria's sphere of influence and potential annexation.
It will be built directly under those approach paths.
Military sound‐barrier‐breaking jets generate noise and vibrations on take off, approach, and landing that are easily double the 55‐65 db acceptable CNEL levels. And, safety is a concern when these training exercises (F‐5, T‐38, F‐18, C‐ 139, Osprey, etc.) fly extremely low making sloping passes over M ooncrest Lane and the above‐referenced project's
parcel. The noise exposure range and safety zones in SM ALUCP do not appear to consider the two referenced approach paths used by military planes.
Personal Anecdotes for 2022/2023
A military jet flew multiple times between my house and that of my neighbor's to the east. I could clearly see the pilot sitting in the cockpit.
An Osprey made mutiple passes over my house just over the top of my backyard pine tree, vibrating windows and walls. (Screenshot attach
ed as well as a FAA complaint.)
Screenshot of C‐130 approaching to west of my house and a complaint to FAA.
A military jet I could not identity flew over my house multiple times and as it flew around my pine tree I could clearly see the flames coming out of one of the 2 exhausts.
I've had people say to me that I should move (after living here 20+ years). It seems to me that we have the opportunity to make changes that would protect future residents. And, at the same time make improvements for existing residents.
There is clear
ly a complicated issue here. I hope related decisions you make recognize the human dimension and do not get sidetracked by outdated computer modeling or reactionary comments.
Respectfully,
Susan Bryant