My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
JT75C - 200 E. 1ST AMERICAN WAY
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2005
>
04/04/2005
>
JT75C - 200 E. 1ST AMERICAN WAY
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 4:56:48 PM
Creation date
3/30/2005 12:13:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Item #
75C
Date
4/4/2005
Destruction Year
2010
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
340
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />ALUC Minutes <br />Page 8 <br />March 18, 2004 <br /> <br />always to have been an issue, and concluded that the ALUC would be acting in accordance with the <br />AELUP in a finding of Inconsistency. <br /> <br />Commissioner H. Beverburg referred to AELUP page 25, section 3.2.8 regarding the height restriction <br />zone wherein a project that by reason of height or location would cause a diminution in the utility of an <br />airport is unacceptable to the ALUC. He opined that the project as proposed could probably result in <br />reduction of the minimum and movement of the JW A threshold, and should be found inconsistent. <br /> <br />A short discussion ensued among Commissioners and staff regarding building heights in sea level and <br />above ground elevations, with Mr. Mola confirming that the top of his building would be 240-50 ft. above <br />street level. Chairman Bresnahan reviewed his preparation for this item, agreeing with the Commissioners <br />who consider this to be a very sensitive area that is in the approach zone for JW A. Referring to the flight <br />track graphic, he noted it represents a single day thus demonstrating significant overflight of the parcel at <br />low altitude. He disagreed that the ALUC may only consider the FAA's view and concurred with <br />Commissioner H. Beverburg that the Commission, not the staff, makes determinations based on all of the <br />facts. He noted the FAA concern over the safety of flight and FAA's narrow focus, stating that ALUC's <br />concerns go beyond the FAA's. He observed that it is a sensitive area for navaids and that the FAA <br />considers various factors by modeling projects on their computer, but after construction the FAA flight <br />tests all of their navaids. Should they discover a problem, the solution is to reduce the utility of the airport, <br />and an ALUC mandate is to prevent that. He recalled a large building further off the centerline which had <br />that affect to increase minimums and another building that rendered the VOR inoperative. He noted that <br />despite his concerns with the traffic pattern in this sensitive area, the number the Commission used was not <br />arbitrary and capricious but was the existing building height there today. <br /> <br />Mr. Franco Mola emphasized that the issue is about a lot of land owners encountering the same problem as <br />he and had there been public hearings and environmental reports, he would not be appearing with a <br />building higher than the ALUC believes it should be. He stressed that he is not asking for an exemption <br />but just to build within his rights. He cautioned that ALUC should go through the process if they intend to <br />rezone the areas which in effect they are doing in his case, although many other entities will be affected to <br />the point of a huge lawsuit. He urged ALUC to go through the process if they intend to change the rules <br />but that they are being arbitrary in devising the height limit. <br /> <br />Chairman Bresnahan noted that it might be different if the City of Santa Ana were a consistent agency, <br />stating that he does not believe ALUC is ad hoc amending the AELUP or inventing a new rule, but rather is <br />taking all of the information and making an informed action. He added that the City has the ability to <br />override the ALUC if the City believes this to be the best plan. He concluded that ALUC is only reflecting <br />what they believe is best for the airplanes flying over the site and the people living in and around it. <br /> <br />Replying to Mr. Mola, Chairman Bresnahan confirmed that he is only considering and commenting on the <br />current project parcel and not dealing in hypotheticals in other jurisdictions. <br /> <br />Commissioner Harris mentioned the crash yesterday of a plane flying low in limited visibility. <br /> <br />Mr. Mola repeated that he is only asking for some consistency and to let all involved entities know what <br />the ALUC wants so it will not be a guessing game. <br /> <br />Chairman Bresnahan stated his hope that Santa Ana soon becomes a consistent agency and explained why <br />he is prepared to vote for the motion when he previously voted for the conditional approval at 229 ft., <br /> <br />75C-182 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.