HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-054 - Overruling The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission’s DeterminationRESOLUTION NO. 2024-054
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, OVERRULING THE ORANGE
COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED RELATED
BRISTOL SPECIFIC PLAN IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN FOR JOHN WAYNE
AIRPORT, INCLUDING SUPPORTIVE FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Steven Oh, with RCR Bristol, LLC ("Applicant"), on behalf of
Greenville Ranch LLC, BSG West Bristol LLC, and MCG Bristol West LLC ("Property
Owners"), is requesting adoption of the Related Bristol Specific Plan (SP No. 5) a change
of zone for the Project Site to the new Related Bristol Specific Plan (SP No. 5) designation
to facilitate the construction of a mixed -use development ("Project"), known as the
Related Bristol Specific Plan Project, at 3600 Bristol Street ("Project Site"); and
WHEREAS, the Project entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing
sixteen (16) structures on the Project Site; (2) the establishment of a new Related Bristol
Specific Plan (SP No. 5) and a change of zone for the Project Site to the new Related
Bristol Specific Plan (SP No. 5) designation; (3) redevelopment of the Project Site into
3,750 residential units, up to 350,000 square feet of commercial space, 250 hotel rooms,
and 200 senior care units, including 6,520 onsite parking spaces, and 13.1 acres of onsite
open space; and (4) approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map ("VTTM") No. 2023-01; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana ("City") is located partially within the area
contained within the scope of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport
(the "AELUP"); and
WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of California Public Utilities Code
Section 21676 et seq., because a portion of the proposed Related Bristol Specific Plan
(SP No. 5) is within the area covered by the AELUP, subsequent to its introduction, the
Related Bristol Specific Plan (SP No. 5)was submitted to the Orange County Airport Land
Use Commission (the "ALUC") for consideration of the Specific Plan's consistency with
the AELUP; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on July 20, 2023, the ALUC determined that the Related
Bristol Specific Plan (SP No. 5) is inconsistent with the AELUP; and
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2023 and September 26, 2023, the City provided a
notice of intent to overrule ALUC's determination of inconsistency pursuant to California
Public Utilities Code section 21676, subdivision (b); and
Resolution No. 2024-054
Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, ALUC provided a response to the City's notice
of intent to overrule ALUC's consistency determination and submitted additional
comments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 and
216761 if an ALUC determines that a proposed adoption or amendment of a specific plan
or zoning ordinance is inconsistent with an AELUP, the referring local agency may, after
a public hearing, propose to overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote of its governing body,
upon making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of
the Public Utilities Code Section 21670; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council direction given at a City Council meeting on
August 29, 2023; City staff has provided appropriate notice of the City Council's intent to
override the ALUC's determination; and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2024, the City Council held a duly -noticed public
hearing regarding the City Council's intent to overrule the ALUC's determination of
inconsistency, after which the item was continued to the regularly -scheduled City Council
meeting of October 1, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of
the City and is consistent with the purposes set forth in Public Utilities Code Section
21670.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa
Ana as follows:
Section 1. The City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report ("SEIR") that analyzed the Project's environmental impacts in accord with the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., "CEQA"),
the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq.,
the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The Draft SEIR was
made available for public review for 45 days between July 6, 2023 and August 21, 2023.
The document was made available online at the City of Santa Ana website and available
for review at City Hall and the City of Santa Ana Public Library in hard copy form. In
response to comments received on the Draft SEIR, the City prepared a Final SEIR and
released it to the public on August 1, 2024. The Final SEIR in the City Council Resolution
approving the Final SEIR is incorporated herein by reference. The City Council Resolution
recommends certification of the Final SEIR (SCH No. 2020029087), adoption of findings
under CEQA, and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and among other things, properly assesses the
environmental impact of the Project in accordance with CEQA. This Resolution
incorporates by reference the environmental findings and analysis set forth in the City
Council Resolution as if fully set forth herein.
Resolution No. 2024-054
Page 2 of 5
Section 2. The City Council is required to provide findings of fact supporting the
overrule of ALUC's determination of inconsistency as required by California Public Utilities
Code Section 21676, subdivision (b). The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby
adopts the findings set forth in Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference (the "Findings").
Section 3. Based on these Findings and the associated substantial -evidence in
the public record, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds that the proposed
action by the City on the Related Bristol Specific Plan (SP No. 5) is consistent with the
purposes of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in California Public Utilities Code Section
21670, and consistent with the AELUP.
Section 4. Based on the above evidence and Findings made, and the remainder
of the record in this matter, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby overrules the
ALUC's determination that the Related Bristol Specific Plan (SP No. 5) is inconsistent with
AELUP.
Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by
the City Council, and the City Clerk shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this
Resolution.
Section 6. The documents and materials associated with this Resolution that
constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at Santa
Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The City Clerk is the custodian
of records for the record of proceedings.
Section 7. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims,
demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal,
equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such
other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought
against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or
concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown
Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision
Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state
or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of
a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right
to approve the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall
reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the
City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action
brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action.
Resolution No. 2024-054
Page 3of5
Section 8. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Resolution. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that
it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
ADOPTED this 1 st day of October, 2024.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SONIA R. Carvalho
City Attorney
By: ,
Laura A. Rossini
Chief Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers Amezcua, Bacerra, Hernandez, Lopez
Penaloza Vazquez 6
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
Resolution No. 2024-054
Page 4 of 5
None 10)
Phan (1) - recusal
None (0)
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, J EN N I FER L. FALL, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution
No. 2024-054 to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the city of Santa
Ana on October 1, 2024.
Date: 1C� (R��
Resolution No. 2024-054
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF FACT
SUBJECT: CITY OF SANTA ANA NOTICE OF INTENT TO OVERRULE THE
ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY FOR THE RELATED BRISTOL
SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Ana ("City") is required to provide findings supporting the
overrule of the Change County Airport Land Use Commission's (" ALUC") determination
of inconsistency as required in the California Public Utilities Code ("PUC") Section
21676(b). Based on the following Findings of Fact and the associated substantial
evidence in the public record, the proposed action by the City on the Related Bristol
Specific Plan Project ("Project") is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics
Act as stated in PUC Section 21670, which provides, in relevant part:
It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare
by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use
measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and
safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these
areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses."
Specifically, the City's proposed action on the Project provides for the orderly
development of John Wayne Airport (" JWA"), and its surrounding area and promotes
the overall goals and objectives of the State noise standards by avoiding new noise and
safety problems, and protecting the public health, safety and welfare through the
adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise
and safety hazards to the extent that this area is not already devoted to incompatible
uses.
II, FRAMEWORK
It is in the public interest to: (1) provide for the orderly development of each
public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to (2)
promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards
adopted pursuant to PUC Section 21669 and to (3) prevent the creation of new noise
and safety problems.
A. To provide for the orderly development of JWA and the area surrounding the
airport, the ALUC adopted the 2008 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John
Wayne Airport (" JWA AELUP") on April 17, 2008. The JWA AELUP guides
development proposals to provide for orderly development of the airport and the
area surrounding the airport through implementation of the standards in Section
Resolution No. 2024-054
2.1 (aircraft noise, safety compatibility zones, building height restrictions).
B. The ALUC also adopted a separate Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Heliports
("Heliports AELUP") on June 19, 2008.
C. The ALUC is required to use the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
("Handbook") that was updated by the California Department of Transportation,
Division of Aeronautics (" Caltrans") in 2011. Neither the JWA AELUP nor the
Heliports AELUP have been updated to incorporate the Handbook's guidance.
Likewise, the JWA AELUP has not been updated with information about the
operation and environmental effects of JWA as reflected in its most recent Final
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), certified by the Orange County Board of
Supervisors on June 25, 2019 for the General Aviation Improvement Program
(11GAI P") .
D. The City of Santa Ana is required to provide findings supporting the overrule of
the Orange County ALUC determination as required in PUC Section 21676(b).
Based on the following Findings of Fact and the associated substantial evidence
in the public record, the proposed action by the City on the Project at 3600 South
Bristol Street and related zoning change (amendment application) are consistent
with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in PUC Section 21670.
E. The proposed Project provides for the orderly development of J'VVA, and its
surrounding area and promotes the overall goals and objectives of the State
noise standards by avoiding new noise and safety problems, and protecting the
public health, safety and welfare through the adoption of land use measures that
minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards to the
extent that this area is not already devoted to incompatible uses. This
Project would not add any new residential or commercial noise impacts to the
JWA 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise area.
F. As the Project proposes a zone change and adoption of a Specific Plan, and
pursuant to PUC Section 21676, the City of Santa Ana referred the proposed
Project to the ALUC for review.
G. The ALUC has adopted FAR Part 77 as the criteria for determining height
restrictions in Grange County. FAR Part 77 requires notification to FAA for any
project that would be more than 200 feet in height above ground level or within
the imaginary surface of a 100:1 slope extending outward for 20,000 feet from
the nearest runway. Here, the Project site is located within the 206-foot-high
imaginary surface area for JWA, and the proposed mixed -use buildings that
are a part of the Project would be a maximum of 25 stories high, with the tallest
point on the buildings being 285 feet above the existing ground level. Thus,
FAA notification is required.
H. On July 20, 2023, the City of Santa Ana presented the Project to the ALUC for
a determination of consistency with the JWA AELUP.
Resolution No. 2024-054
I. The ALUC staff report for that hearing recommended that the ALUC find the
proposed Project consistent with AELUP issues of aircraft noise, flight tracks
and safety, and heliports. The staff report noted that with regard to AELUP
issues of height restrictions, the Project is inconsistent per Section 3.2.1 of the
AELUP, which states that "within the boundaries of the AELUP, any land use
may be found to be inconsistent with the AELUP which... permits structures of
excessive height in areas which would affect adversely the continued operation
of the airport; or permit activities or facilities that would affect adversely
aeronautical operations." The proposed Project would allow buildings up to 25
stories and/or 285 feet, which would penetrate the FAR Part 77 Horizontal
Obstruction Imaginary Surface for JWA.
J. On July 20, 2023, the ALUC held a public hearing and, by unanimous vote,
adopted a resolution finding the Project inconsistent with the AELUP for the
stated reasons set forth in the staff report.
K. The City of Santa Ana has the general police power to control land use within
its territorial jurisdiction. (Cal. Const., art. XI 11, § 7). This constitutional
authority is acknowledged in State law (PUC. §§ 21676, 21676.5) and the
ALUC process allowing for overrule of an ALUC finding of inconsistency.
L. Pursuant to PUC Section 21676(b), the City may overrule the commission by a
two-thirds vote of the City Council if it makes specific findings that the Project is
consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act.
M. The City finds that the Project is consistent with the AELUP and with the
purposes of the State Aeronautics Act based on the following Findings of Fact
and substantial evidence.
111. FINDINGS of FACT
A. Related Bristol Specific Plan Project. The Project consists of a specific plan
for a 42-acre site to allow up to 3,750 residential units, up to 350,000 square feet
of commercial space, 250 hotel rooms, and 200 senior care units, including 6,520
onsite parking spaces, and 13.1 acres of onsite open space. The Project requires
discretionary approval of a tentative tract map, amendment application (zone
change) for a specific plan, development agreement, and inclusionary housing
plan. The specific plan contains permissive uses and development standards, but
does not specify exact locations and heights of each implementing development that
falls within the scope of the specific plan.
B. The comments in ALUC's staff report and ALUC's determination of inconsistency
found the Project inconsistent with AELUP for JWA per Section 3.2.1 because the
Project would allow buildings up to 25 stories and/or 285 feet which would penetrate
the FAR Part77 Horizontal Obstruction Imaginary Surface for JWA.
Resolution No. 2024-054
C. During the July 20, 2023 ALUC hearing on the Project, City staff and the project
applicant provided supplemental information about the nature of a specific plan,
hove implementing projects will be reviewed, information on existing high-rises in
the vicinity, and FAA notification requirements for buildings exceeding 200 feet in
height, and that conditions of approval for the Project would contain a
condition requiring "Notice of Airport in Vicinity," to be included in all lease/rental
agreements and post outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of
operating aircraft, which demonstrates further compliance with the AELUP and to
minimize potential future noise complaints. Despite this information, the ALUC
voted to find the Project inconsistent per Section 3.2.1 of the AELUP.
D. Justification for Finding Project Consistent with the Purposes of PUC
Section 21670.
1. Noise. The residential and commercial land uses under the proposed
Project are consistent with the aircraft noise standards of the AELUP and
the requirements of PUC Section 21670.
a. The Project is located outside of the JWA 60 to 65 dBA CNEL aircraft
noise contours. Aircraft noise analysis was completed in the Project's
SEI R (State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) and presented at the
ALUC hearing.
1) The AELUP establishes aircraft noise exposure exterior noise level
compatibility thresholds for new development by land use
category. According to the exterior noise thresholds outlined in the
AELUP, multi -family residential development is considered
normally consistent with exterior noise levels of less than 60 dBA
CNEL, conditionally consistent with exterior noise levels between
60 and 65 dBA CNEL and normally inconsistent with exterior noise
level above 65 Dba cnel. For commercial retail land use, exterior
noise levels are considered normally consistent with exterior noise
levels of less than 65 dBA CNEL and conditionally consistent with
exterior noise level above 65 dBA CNEL.
b. According to Section 5.9 of the SEIR, the Project site is located
outside of both the airport's planned and actual (2019) 60 CNEL
contours of JWA. Thus, according to the AELUP, the Project
residential, open space, and commercial retail land uses are normally
consistent with JWA aircraft noise exposure exterior noise level
compatibility thresholds.
c. The airport related noise on the Project site does not exceed the City's
Municipal Code permissible noise levels.
d. The County's General Aviation Noise Ordinance prohibits commercial
Resolution No. 2024-054
aircraft departures between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00a.m. and
arrivals between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
e. Based on the foregoing, these restrictions substantially limit the
aircraft noise during the noise sensitive nighttime hours for residential
use. Thus, noise impacts related to JWA would be less than
significant.
f. The JWA GAIP EIR also contains noise analysis demonstrating that
the Project is outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. This noise
analysis is based on one year's worth of aircraft operations in all
runway operating configurations with for both existing aircraft fleet
mixes and future fleet forecasts. This analysis includes the time of day
of all operations and includes noise penalties for evening (7 pm to 10
pm) and night (10 pm to 7 am) aircraft operations of five and ten
decibels per operation. Residential land uses are normally consistent
in areas impacted by aircraft noise up to 60 dBA CNEL and
commercial land uses up to 65 dBA CNEL as shown in the AELUP
Table 1. These are the same noise standards used by the FAA and
the State of California to identify compatible land uses near airports.
g. The Project is located outside of the JWA single -event aircraft noise
contours. The detailed aircraft noise analysis completed as part of the
JWA GAIP EIR included analysis of single event aircraft noise. This
analysis included single event noise contours for the noisiest aircraft
making regular use of JWA. The Project developer's consultant
provided analysis and information at the ALUC hearing showing the
Project site is located outside of the JWA 85 dB single event noise
contours for all aircraft making regular use of the Airport.
h. The Project includes a condition of approval notifying future residents.
The conditions of approval also include notification measures, which
includes a "Notice of Airport in Vicinity," to be included in all
lease/rental agreements and post outdoor signage informing the
public of the presence of operating aircraft, which demonstrates
further compliance with the AELUP and to minimize potential future
noise complaints.
i. The General Plan Update (GPU) in 2022 addresses noise, safety,
hazards, and other related impacts from development in the vicinity of
the Airport. Projects approved under the GPU would be required to
comply with FAA airspace protection regulations using the AELUP
consistency determination process.
j. Based on the foregoing, the Project will not result in the exposure of
City residents to excess noise within the meaning if PUC Section
21670.
Resolution No. 2024-054
2. Safety. The residential and commercial land uses under the proposed
project are consistent with the safety standards of the AELUP.
a. Section 2. 1. 2 of the JWA AELUP describes the airport's safety
compatibility zones.
1) Per Section 2. 1. 2 of the JWA AELUP, " Safety and compatibility
zones depict which land uses are acceptable and which are
unacceptable in various portions of airport environs."
2) The purpose of these zones, per the JWA AELUP, is to " support
the continued use and operation of an airport by establishing
compatibility and safety standards to promote air navigational
safety and to reduce potential safety hazards for persons living,
working or recreating near JWA."
b. The JWA AELUP identifies the following Safety Zones:
1) Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone
2) Zone 2: Inner Approach/ Departure
3) Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone
4) Zone 4: Outer Approach/ Departure Zone
5) Zone 5: Sideline Zone
6) Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone
c. According to the ALUC staff report, the Project is not in any of the
AELUP safety zones. The Project is located outside of the airport's 00
CNEL contours. Table 1 of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for
JWA shows that residential land uses outside of the +EEO CNEL contour
are "normally consistent." The Project is located more than 0.29 miles
from the outer edge of AELUP Zone 6, Traffic Pattern Zone as
depicted in Appendix D. Further, AELUP Appendix D states the "Basic
Compatibility Qualities" of Zone 0 as "Allow residential uses" and
"Allow most nonresidential uses."
d. The Project is not in the JWA runway protection zones (RPZ). The
Project is located nearly two miles from the outer edge of the nearest
JWA RPZ.
e. No part of the Project will be inconsistent with the policies set forth in
Section 2.1.2 of the JWA AELUP regarding Safety Compatibility
Resolution No. 2024-054
Zones. Furthermore, the ALUC did not find, and cannot find, that the
Project is inconsistent with Section 2.1.2 of the JWA AELUP.
f. Based on the foregoing, the Project will not result in the exposure of
City residents to excessive safety hazards within the meaning of PUC
Section 21670.
3. Height. The residential and commercial land uses under the proposed
Project are consistent with the height standards of the AELUP. The
allowable height of structures surrounding an airport is described in FAR
Part 77 as the allowable height at which safe movement of aircraft occurs.
The regulation requires that notice be given to the FAA if there is a
proposal to construct a structure that would exceed a 100:1 slope of an
imaginary surface extending outward for 20,000 feet from the nearest
runway at JWA. Beyond the 100:1 imaginary surface, FAR Part 77
requires notification to FAA for any project that will be more than 200 feet
in height above the ground level.
a. The proposed buildings associated with the Specific Plan would not
exceed the sloping, three-dimensional 100:1 (one percent sloping
surface from the nearest runway over 3,200 feet in actual length) FAA
notification surface to require the Filing of FAA Form 7460-1. This
information was provided by the Project applicant's representative
during the ALUC hearing on the Project.
b. The buildings exceeding 200 feet in height in the Specific Plan area
will not exceed the sloping, three-dimensional 50:1 FAA precision
instrument Approach Surface to JWA Runway 20R. This information
was provided by the Project applicant's representative during the
ALUC hearing on the Project.
c. Each future site -specific implementing development under the Project
will be required to be submitted through the City's development review
process, at which point if a specific building is proposed within the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Notification Area that exceeds
200 feet in height, FAA notification compliance would be required
through the development review process.
d. In addition to requiring FAA notification for any buildings exceeding
200 feet in height within the Project area, AELUP and FAR Part 77
require an FAA aeronautical study to be conducted to ensure that the
proposed structures would not constitute a hazard to air navigation.
e. The FAA's Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation for the
Mixed -Use development structures are the only source of
authoritative, aviation safety findings regarding the Project because:
1) "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of
Resolution No. 2024-054
airspace of the United States" (49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(1)).
2) In order to use this airspace, the FAA Administrator is responsible
for:
i. Plans and policy for the safe use of the navigable airspace
(49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1); and
ii. "[R]egulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations
on safe altitudes) for navigating, protecting and identifying
aircraft; protecting individuals and property on the ground;
using the navigable airspace efficiently; and preventing
collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or
water vehicle, and between aircraft and airborne objects"
(49 U.S.C. § 491 g3(b)(2)}.
3) The FAA's aeronautical studies for project structures are the
definitive standard for assessing compliance with federal aviation
safety laws and regulations (49 U.S.C. § 77.1(c)). This federal
authority is recognized in State law (Cal. PUC §21240).
f. The FAA will conduct an aeronautical study (49 U.S.C. §44718 and
14 CFR Part 77) and issue its Determinations for individual
implementing projects that exceed 200 feet in height and are
submitted within the Specific Plan area.
g. The Project is an approval only as to the specific plan. No specific
structures are contemplated as part of the Project. Therefore, nothing
in the Project will create an obstruction or hazard to air navigation
within the meaning of 14 CFR Part 77, and no part of the Project
involves the proposed construction or alteration of any structures.
Accordingly, no aeronautical study is required as part of the Project.
See 49 USC 44718; 14 CFR Part 77; FAA order JO 7400.2M.
h. Based on the foregoing, the Project is consistent with AELUP's height
standards.
i. The other entities that have processed or commented on this project
have aviation safety duties and responsibilities related to this matter.
E ac h of these entities relies on or ultimately defers to the FAA's
authoritative aviation safety role in airspace determinations.
1) The AELUP for JWA, Section 2.1.3 Building Height Restrictions
states, "in adopting criteria for building height restrictions in the
vicinities of airports, the Commission considered only one
standard and that was Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 ([14
Resolution No. 2024-054
C F R] Part 77) entitled, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace.
"These regulations are the only definitive standard available
[emphasis added] and the standard most generally used."
2) Section 2.1.3 also recognizes FAA aeronautical studies beyond
14 CFR Part 77 surfaces as the standard for review, "In addition
to the `imaginary surfaces,' the Commission will use all of the
FAR Part 77.23 standards along with the results of FAA
aeronautical studies, [emphasis added] or other studies deemed
necessary by the Commission, in order to determine if a structure
is an `obstruction."' This section goes on to state: The
Commission considers and recognizes the FAA as the single
"Authority" for analyzing project impact on airport or aeronautical
operations, or navigational -aid siting, including interference with
navigational- aids or published flight paths and procedures. The
Commission also considers the FAA as the "Authority" for
reporting the results of such studies and project analyses. The
Commission will not consider the findings of reports or studies
conducted by parties other than the FAA unless the FAA certifies
and adopts such findings as true and correct.
3) Section 2.1.3 adds reference to FAA Advisory Circular 15015190-
4A7 A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects Around
Airports for Commission Review. This FAA .Advisory Circular
provides specific guidance for establishing zoning regulations
along with specific guidance on a "variance" process for potential
obstructions. At Section 3.b., "The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) conducts aeronautical studies on
obstructions which examine their effect on such factors as:
aircraft operational capabilities; electronic and procedural
requirements; and, airport hazard standards. If an aeronautical
study shows that an obstruction, when evaluated against
these factors, has no substantial adverse effect upon the
safe and efficient use of navigable airspace, then the
obstruction is considered not to be a hazard to air
navigation [emphasis added],"
4) CalTrans Division of Aeronautics — Caltrans publishes the
Handbook in accordance with State Law with the purpose to, "
provide information to ALUCs, their staffs, airport proprietors,
cities, counties, consultants, and the public; to identify the
requirements and procedures for preparing effective compatibility
planning documents; and define exemptions where applicable
(Caltrans, 2011)." The Handbook provides specific guidance for
Resolution No. 2024-054
assessing potential airspace obstructions in Section 4.5 Airspace
Protection.
a. JWA —The FAA requires airport sponsors like Orange County
to accept specific grant assurances when they accept federal
funding. Hazard Removal and Mitigation and Compatible Land
Use are two of these assurances (49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(9) and
(10)). For hazard removal, the Airport relies on the FAA's
aeronautical study to meet its requirement. For compatible land
use, the Airport relies on coordination with the surrounding
cities and the ALUC. The following are the specific assurances:
b. Hazard Removal and Mitigation. It will take appropriate action
to assure that such terminal airspace as is required to protect
instrument and visual operations to the airport (including
established minimum flight altitudes) will be adequately cleared
and protected by removing, lowering, relocating, marking, or
lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport hazards and by
preventing the establishment or creation of future airport
hazards.
The proposed Project would not result in hazards related to
excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or electronic
interference. Exterior lighting fixtures and security lighting
would be installed in accordance with the City's Municipal
Code Division 3, Building Security Regulations, which
includes specifications for shielding and intensity of security
lighting. In addition, the proposed Project would not use
highly reflective surfaces, and does not include large areas
of glass on the buildings. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not generate substantial sources of glare.
• Operation of the proposed residential and commercial uses
would not generate substantial quantities of steam, smoke,
or dust emissions. Dust emissions are regulated by
SCAQMD requirements and construction related air quality
emissions that could include steam, smoke, and dust
emissions would be less than significant with
implementation of the standard SCAQMD Rules.
• The proposed Project would include the use of typical
electronics, such as computers, televisions, and other
electronics with wireless capability. These types of
electronics are currently being used by the existing
industrial land uses on the site, and other uses in the vicinity
Resolution No. 2024-054
of the site. The new residential and commercial uses on the
site would use similar technology that does not cause
electronic interference that could affect aircraft. Thus,
impacts related to electronic interference with operations of
JWA would not occur.
c. Compatible Land Use. It will take appropriate action, to the
extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to
restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity
of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal
airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft. In
addition, if the Project is for noise compatibility program
implementation, it will not cause or permit any change in land
use, within its jurisdiction, that will reduce its compatibility, with
respect to the airport, of the noise compatibility program
measures upon which Federal funds have been expended.
4. Overflight. "Close to the JWA approach centerline" as identified by the
ALUC is neither an FAA nor an AELUP standard.
a. The FAA is the only authoritative source of aviation safety data
and the FAA does not have a `close to the JWA approach
centerline" standard.
b. The AELUP clearly identifies its airport land use planning
standards around aircraft noise, safety, and height. Objective
measures of these standards are clearly identified in AELUP
Section 2.1. The Specific Plan is drafted to be consistent with
each of these objective standards.
c. Two-dimensional flight tracks and a list of unassociated aircraft
do nothing to inform the impact of overflights. The ALUC
provided limited arrival flight tracks, limited departure flight
tracks and lists of aircraft by time of day and altitude that were
purported to have produced these flight tracks. The limited
nature of the information was commented on by ALUC
commissioners during the July 20, 2023 hearing.
d. Aircraft noise contours used to objectively measure noise
impact already assume flight tracks and actual operating
conditions for a full year including future operations. Limited
Resolution No. 2024-054
information presented within the staff report packet dated July
20, 2023 of arrival flight tracks and limited information on
departure flight tracks are not representative of a general
condition and are not substantive evidence.
e. The project is located outside of the JWA single event noise
exposure areas documented in the JWA General Aviation
Improvement Program EIR certified on June 25, 2019. The
project developer presented this information to the ALUC
Commission at its hearing on July 20, 2023.
5. Heliports. Heliports are not a part of the Project, therefore ALUC has not
reviewed this for consistency and has made no determination.
6. Zone Change. The proposed zone change (amendment application) is
consistent with the objective AELUP aircraft noise, safety and height
standards and is therefore consistent with the larger planning role of the
ALUC. "Close to the JWA approach centerline" is not an FAA or an ALUC
standard.
a. ALUC offers no substantiation that overflights of new residents
would be disturbed or annoyed. On the contrary, the ALUC
demonstrates that the Project is located outside of the 60 dBA
CNEL noise contour. As such, the Project would not add any
new residential or commercial noise impacts to the JWA 65
dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise area.
b. Flight tracks limited information for arrivals and departures,
which was commented on by Commission members during the
hearing, are not unique and are fully accounted for in the one
year of overflights used to measure CNEL noise impacts
associated with JWA.
e. Flight tracks limited information for arrivals and departures,
which was commented on by commission members during the
hearing, are not unique and are fully accounted for in the single -
event noise contours produced for the JWA GRIP EIR. The
Project is located outside of these single -event noise contours.
d. Per section 1.2 of the AELUP for JWA, the purpose of the
AELUP is to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants
within the vicinity of the airport and to ensure the continued
Resolution No. 2024-054
operations of the airport. The method by which the ALUC
achieves this purpose is through the application of the
objective standards contained in Section 2.1 of the AELUP. As
demonstrated in the ALUC staff report and, in these Findings,
the Specific Plan and application for each implementing project
is and will be consistent with each of the standards. As a result,
the ALUC has met their duty under Section 1.2 by ensuring that
the Specific Plan meets these standards.
e. Additionally, Section 2.1.4 of the AELUP for JWA and PUC
Section 21674 charge the Commission to coordinate at the
local level to ensure compatible land use planning. The method
by which the ALUC achieves this charge is through the
application of the objective standards contained in Section 2.1
of the AELUP. As demonstrated in the ALUC staff report and,
in these Findings, the Project is consistent with each of the
standards. As a result, the ALUC has met their duty under
Section 2.1.4 and PUC Section 21674 by ensuring that the
Project meets these standards.
Resolution No. 2024-054