An upcoming hearing on a controversial proposal for changes at the Santa Ynez Valley Airport has been postponed until September amid public calls for more extensive environmental review and community concerns about scenic views being blocked by 25-foot-high hangars.

Critics of the proposed airport improvements that have been in the planning stages for several years demanded that a public comment period be extended beyond Aug. 22, and that the environmental hearing — originally set for Aug. 18 in Solvang — not be held at a time when many people are on summer vacation.

Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department staff members took those concerns to heart, and have decided to reschedule the hearing to 5 p.m. Sept. 9 at the Solvang Veterans Hall, and accept written comments on the project’s environmental document through Sept. 12, said county planner Brian Tetley.

“We have received many letters, cards and e-mails from the public with concerns about the project,” he said.

Those included letters from several community groups in the valley urging an extensive environmental impact report (EIR) be required, rather than a lesser analysis known as a “mitigated negative declaration.” The opponent groups include the Santa Ynez Valley Alliance, Women’s Environmental Watch, Preservation of Los Olivos, Preservation of Santa Ynez, and Meadowlark Ranches Homeowners Association.

Perhaps no one is more concerned than Dan Gainey, owner of Gainey Vineyard and Winery, about what airport officials want to do on the 127-acre site adjacent to his property that became an independently run airport in 1993.

Gainey’s land surrounds much of the airport, and its winery, tasting room and public events center are about 300 feet from where the airport board wants to build six concrete pads for helicopter landings and takeoffs.

Advertisement

Those helipads, which would be used by Sheriff’s Department and county Fire Department firefighting and rescue helicopters, would be hundreds of yards closer to the Gainey facilities than the airport’s existing helipads, and only about 30 feet from the vineyard’s property line.

“Of particular concern is the proposed heliport,” Gainey wrote in a letter to Tetley, “ ... as close as it possibly could be to the Gainey Vineyard, public tasting room and event center. The potential impact of noise, dust, lights and aesthetics would be devastating to our business and the rural character and ambiance which have been so crucial to the success of that business.”

Willy Chamberlin, chairman of the Santa Ynez Valley Airport Authority’s nine-member board, told reporters that a recent study done by a noise consultant showed there would be less sound impacting Gainey’s property from the proposed helipads, even though they’re closer than the existing ones, because the approach path for landing helicopters would be east of the winery.

The winery, tasting room and events center where musical concerts for hundreds of people are held don’t qualify as a “noise-sensitive location” requiring a noise study for the proposed project, Chamberlin said, but one was done at airport expense anyway “because we’re good neighbors.”

His remarks were made during a two-hour press briefing on the project Thursday at the airport office.

The proposed improvements at the airport, just south of Highway 246 and about a mile east of Highway 154, include adding 32 hangars to the 85 onsite now.

Eight of the new ones would be additions to existing, 17-foot-high hangars at the west end of the airport, 15 would be privately-financed hangar buildings 25 feet tall on leased land along the northern edge of the airport, and the rest would be in two buildings adjacent to the proposed new helipads.

One of the new buildings at the east end also would be 25 feet tall and about 1,000 feet from Highway 246, but only a stone’s throw from the Gainey vineyards

It would house several sheriff’s and fire helicopters now stored in hangars of the same height at the opposite end of the airport — a considerable distance from the existing helipads. Consequently, helicopters currently must be towed on trailers between the helipads and the westerly hangars, which slows response time in an emergency, and is generally inefficient, noted Chamberlin and the draft environmental document for the project.

“The long distance between the helicopter hangar and the helicopter parking area requires emergency services personnel to transport their helicopters by dolly to the far east-end ramp,” the report states. “This hinders emergency services by substantially increasing response time, significantly increasing security risk and safety.”

Carla Frisk, a Santa Ynez Valley Alliance board member, said community concern centers on the “wall of buildings” hundreds of feet long visible from Highway 246 — and, to a lesser degree, from scenic Highway 154 — with the proposed 25-foot-tall hangars.

“That’s at basically the gateway to the valley,” she remarked. “When you drive down 246, it will all but obliterate views of the Santa Ynez Mountains, and that’s what defines our valley,” Frisk contended.

“I grant these hangars will be seen, no question,” Chamberlin conceded, adding that the top of the mountain range will still be visible above the structures. “But there will be some landscaping requirements that will soften” the visual impact of the new buildings, he said.

The airport board, along with the county planning staff, have concluded the potential noise, visual and other impacts of the proposed project can be lessened to the point that they are not significant enough to necessitate a full EIR, which would be costly and time-consuming.

“I believe the county is very satisfied that the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) requirements are met” with the recently completed “negative declaration,” said Chamberlin, a former county supervisor for the 3rd District, which includes the Santa Ynez Valley. “I frankly, as an individual, don’t see where else they’re going to go (analyze further) with an EIR.”

Opponents contend the analysis done so far failed to adequately study the proposed project or to account for additional expansions envisioned by the airport in future years, such as new administrative offices, a possible restaurant, and extension of the runway by 500 feet. Not assessing the impacts of those future phases violates CEQA’s prohibition against piecemeal environmental analysis, Frisk and other critics said.

That contention was flatly disputed by Chamberlin.

“There are some additional phases (contemplated in future years) that nobody has applied to build,” he told reporters, the specifics of which have yet to be determined. “CEQA does not require (environmental) review of a project that has no description.”

While he contends the airport board has gone out of its way to share all information with the public about the proposed project — “We’re not trying to stonewall those concerned citizens,” he said — Gainey’s letter contends the only way it can be adequately aired and evaluated is through a full EIR.

“Expansion of the airport has potentially significant impacts to my personal business, as well as the lifestyle and character of the Santa Ynez Valley,” he wrote. “This is far too important a project not to be fully scrutinized by the general public.”

Copies of the draft environmental document can be viewed at county planning offices, including at 624 Foster Road in Santa Maria, at local libraries, and online atwww.sbcounty

planning.org/projects/index.cfm

Written comments can be sent to Tetley by e-mail at

btetley@co.santa-barbara.ca.us, or he can be contacted by phone at 934-6589.

Chuck Schultz can be reached at 925-2691, Ext. 2241, or cschultz@santamariatimes.com.

August 10, 2008