CORRESPONDENCE - #41 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Melanie McCann December 6, 2021 Page 3 impacts and reducing the unique orcompounded health risks in disadvantaged communities and to fostereconomic, social, and educational equality. More directly, despite any Federal Aviation Administration Determination of No Hazard for the proposed new buildings within the focus areas, the cumulative effect by the proposed building heights area major concern to the ALUC and the Division. On a case by case basis, the ALUC may find a proposed project to be inconsistent with the AELUP, particularly as it relates to sections 1 .2 and 2.1 .4, and the PUC, section 21674 (a). The Division shares the ALUC's concern and interpretation of their role as it regards the proposed growth in mixed-use developments and associated structural building heights. This is in accordance with the AELUP forJWA, section 2.1 .3 pages 13-14,which states: A[n] [Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)] Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation does not automatically equate to a Consistency determination by the ALUC. The FAA may also conclude in their aeronautical study that a project is an "Obstruction" but not a Hazard to Air Navigation...The commission may utilize criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at individual airports which may differ from those contained in FAR Part 77, should evidence of health,welfare, or air safety surface sufficient to justify such an action. According to Government Code section 65302.3 (a), a city's general plan as well as any applicable specific plans, "shall be consistent"with an ALUCP (e.g.AELUP for JWA) and that every affected city must amend its general and specific plans as necessary to keep them consistent with the ALUCP. To further clarify how anALUC addresses newly proposed construction projects and use permits and structure height,refer to PUC 21676(a). The City's Findings of Fact note that the 2008AELUP for JWA is not consistent with the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) does not apply, since Handbook updates do not impact the currently adopted AELUP for JWA. The SAA requires coordination between airports and local land use but does not specify how often plans should be updated. The Handbookwill guide subsequent AELUP updates. ALUCs are encouraged to expand on the Handbook's recommended minimums, wherejustified, to protect the airport's viability and publicwelfare from further incompatible land uses. Also, the City finds "The vast majority of the Project falls outside of the JWA AELUP planning area, which is defined in Section 1 .7 of the JWA AELUP as the furthest extentof the 60 CNEL Contour, the FAR Part 77 Notification Surfaceand the runwaysafety zones associated with the airport..." The City also finds that the Project is consistent with the JWA AELUP as "the majority of the project falls outside the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour" and "the vast majority of the project is located outside the 65 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour." However,three out of five focus areas are all or partially within "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated,and efficient transportations yStern to enhance California's economyand livability"