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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Jack W. Golden September 16, 2004 Page 10 of20 Second, "tall buildings'; are not the subject of this "project." As discussed above, the "project" is the amendment of the City's General Plan. There is nothing within this section r of your letter that indicates how the AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard. B. Paragraph 2. first sentence "State and federal airport land use compatibility guidelines also recommend that a strict height limitation be imposed that is supported by substantial evidence to show that buildings beyond a certain height would be an obstruction to navigation of aircraft around JwA". There are several concerns within this sentence that need to be addressed. First, you have unfortunately omitted the fact that the AELUP contains no such height restriction requirement. Accordingly, the omission of such a height limitation in the AEE cannot be the basis for inconsistency. Second, there is no "substantial evidence to show that buildings beyond a certain height would be an obstruction to navigation of aircraft around JW An contained within the AELUP, so once again this would not need to be inserted into the AEE to be consistent with the AELUP. There is nothing within this section of your letter that indicates how the AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard. C. Paragraph 2. second and third sentence "As you are aware, long-term members of the AL UC recall the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA ") clearing a building at Hutton Center that ultimately interfered with the VHF Omni Range (VOR) navigational aid at JWA. It is critical that this type ofzmintended result be avoided in the future, based upon appropriate land use compatibility planning. " The FAA cleared a building in Santa Ana that ultimately interfered with a navigational aid at JW A. This comment should be appropriately addressed to the FAA since I am unclear how the City can control the FAA's "clearing of a building." Also, it is my understanding under state law that this scenario illustrates one goal of ALUC review, since the ALUC is aware of this situation, I am certain that such an incident is unlikely to be repeated. There is nothing within this section of your letter that indicates how the AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard. D. Paragraph 3 "Further, it appears that stronger language concerning the heights of buildings in the Land Use Element is b€;ing replaced with weaker, more subjective criteria. The previous language acknowledged that tall structures within 3 miles of an airport that are 200 feet or higher above 75C-205