The study maps out four groups of expansion with groups one and two slated for construction within the next few years following Conditional Use Permit approvals. Groups three and four are considered conceptual only. Group one includes plans to construct 32 aircraft hangers to replace 32 existing tie-down slots as well as fencing around the airport to prevent livestock interference on the runway. The additional hangers would help to ease the 10-year waiting list some community members have been stuck on. Group two includes the construction of six new helicopter pads, including one for County emergency helicopters. Currently, the emergency helicopter has to be taxied the length of the airport to the helicopter pad before take off.

 

In the preliminary study, Airport Authority, in conjunction with the Central Coast Board of Architectural Review (CCBAR), has stated a Negative Declaration (ND) regarding environmental impacts to the surrounding lands and businesses. The ND essentially states that the current plans do not disrupt any environments to the extent that a more thorough evaluation needs to be conducted.

 

“Our biggest concern is that they’re doing an ND, a negative declaration, rather than an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),” said a collective statement issued by community organizations that have joined to voice their concerns about the proposal. The parties include: Women’s Environmental Watch, Preservation of Santa Ynez, Preservation of Los Olivos, Gainey Winery, Valley Alliance and a number of concerned community leaders.

 

“Asking for an EIR at this point is jumping the gun when a signed Initial Study hasn’t even come out for public review,” said Kim Joos of Airport Authority.

 

But within the study that has been published, three areas are raising the greatest concern for the community. The new helicopter landing and take off site is substantially closer to the Gainey Winery tasting room and critics argue that the noise impacts of the helicopters should be addressed as both noise and agricultural impacts.

 

“The public aspects of the winery’s operation are part and parcel to the success of the agricultural operations of the Gainey Winery,” they said. “The noise impacts should not be separated from the impacts to ag. resources because they are one in the same.”

The Initial Study does address mitigating the noise impacts of the landing pad relocation. In a noise study conducted by Dudeck & Associates, Inc., it was determined that the “entire range [of noise] falls within the normally acceptable community noise exposure level (CNEL) for even noise-sensitive land uses (i.e. residences, lodging facilities, hospitals).”

 

However, the community organizations argue that the prescribed flight plan followed during the study does not accurately reflect the actual flight paths that would be flown. Further, they said that Airport Authority does not have the power to enforce the flight plan.

 

“Do we have the actual authority? Can I go write them a ticket? No,” Joos said. But she added that, “The proposed flight plan, that’s something that we have worked with the county aviation agreement on and everyone agrees that it’s safe. I would fully expect total compliance.”

 

However, Dan H. Gainey and residents of the Meadowlark Ranch Association, a housing community adjacent to Gainey Vineyard, said that the current flight plans are not followed and that they are not confident that the prescribed helicopter pattern will be obeyed.

 

“Historically, what’s happened is that they’ve set up these flight patterns and only some of the pilots follow them. They shave that corner and come over the property, sometimes right over the tasting room,” Gainey said. “The fact that it’s an uncontrolled airport means that these mitigation measures are unenforceable.”

 

Other environmental mitigation measures in question are the masking of the proposed airport hangers. Currently, the plan includes development of more than 120,000 square feet of airport property for helicopter pads and hangers.

 

Airport Authority has been working with Central Coast Board of Architectural Review (CCBAR) to develop landscaping and contoured grading to diminish the visibility of the structures that will be visible from Highways 154 and 246. But the full extent of those measures is not included in the preliminary Initial Study.

 

The plans include planting oak trees and other faster-growing vegetation to mask the buildings as well as selecting paints and materials consistent with the existing structures that will mask the structures along the Santa Ynez Mountain backdrop. But the community organizations are not satisfied with the current evaluation and are requesting a full visual impact study to more thoroughly assess the impacts.

 

The organizations argue that the proposed structures that would run parallel to Highway 246 will be substantially more visible than the existing structures, which run perpendicular to the highway.

 

“CCBAR has no authority to approve or modify approval of discretionary projects. So in order to get the right mitigation measures, you have to do a thorough visual analysis, so you know what the visual impacts really are going to be,” they said. “The fact that CCBAR is reviewing that, doesn’t guarantee anybody anything.”

 

The last major point of contention is the proposed capping of three existing landfills on the airport property. Joos acknowledges that the information in the preliminary study regarding how the landfills will be capped is insufficient. But following a meeting with Santa Barbara Resource Recovery & Waste Management, detailed plans on the landfill caps are being drafted for addition to the final version of the Initial Study.

 

According to the Initial Study, the landfill is not a health hazard, but was identified to be contaminating groundwater to the east of the landfill in the direction of Gainey Vineyard. The County has since installed a gas extraction system to remove the gasses and leaching from the landfills.

 

Ultimately, the organizations want to see a full Environmental Impact Report and visual impact study to address their concerns and ensure that thorough evaluation of all alternatives and impacts of all four groups combined has been made.

 

“We think that the whole four phases need to be looked at, at once,” they said. They assert that separating the first two groups from groups three and four creates a piecemeal assessment of the impacts. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was created to prevent such piecemealing so that governing bodies had complete and accurate information when approving such projects, they said.

 

Joos agrees that the preliminary study does not adequately address certain aspects of the expansion, but noted that, “Phase three is so speculative that we wouldn’t really be able to address that.”

 

The critical organizations disagree. “They’re not conceptual. We know what they want. It’s in the chart. Maybe the exact number of square footage is not down there, but essentially we know they want a restaurant. We know they want certain things to be part of that [second phase],” they said.

 

The next preliminary draft of the Initial Study should be available within the next month, Joos said. When the final draft is signed, open-forum meetings about the expansion will begin.