JT75C - 200 E. 1ST AMERICAN WAY - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Kylee Otto, Deputy City Attorney August 6, 2004 Page 5 also reference avigation easements and notification requirements as potential toqls to address noise issues, consistent with the JW A AELUP. 3. I understand that Mr. John Leyerle, on staff at JW A, and the former Manager pf the Access and Noise Office, has previously provided suggestions that he believes would improve the noise contour section on page 4 of the Airport Environs Element. Essentially, he suggests referencing 65 dB CNEL and above. He also suggests that buildings be required to be designed to be sufficiently indoor oriented so as to preclude noise impingement on exterior living areas. 4. On page 11 of the Airport Environs Element, the City quotes language from the AELUP inserting its name in the place of the ALUC as to recognizing the FAA as the single authority. However, this language is taken out of context in that it does not utilize the additional language from the AELUP (presently on pages 13 and 18), which has been a part of the Plan since at least as far back as 1983, invoking the right to utilize criteria for protecting air traffic patterns which may differ from Federal Aviation Regulation ("FAR") Part 77, should evidence of health, welfare, or air safety surface sufficiently to justify such an action. The General Plan must be revised to achieve consistency with the JW A AELUP. This criteria will essentially provide the City Council with the flexibility to invoke such a public health, welfare and safety standard if the mere numbers do not tell the full story. In addition, the Airport Environs Element should require all development proposals that exceed in height the imaginary surfaces as defined by the FAA in FAR Part 77, as well as all development proposals that are described in Section 2.1.6 of the AELUP on pages 15 and 16, to be sent to the ALUC for a consistency determination. The Airport Environs Element should also incorporate some of the language set forth in the general land use policies on pages 20 and 21 of the AELUP. 5. On page 17 of the Airport Environs Element only one sentence is devoted to safety, basically implying that since there are no accident potential zones ("APZs") within Santa Ana there is no safety issue. This, of course, is not true and is not consistent with the safety policies set forth in the JW A AELUP. The City should incorporate into its General Plan the safety criteria provided in the AELUP, in Section 3.2.1, on pages 20 and 21. 6. Policy 1.2 on page 19 should also advocate that noise sensitive land uses (i.e., residential, schools, parks, etc.) not be placed near existing flight paths, consistent with the AELUP policies regarding the location of noise sensitive land uses in noise impact areas. 75C-194