HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-043 - Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's RESOLUTION NO. 2025-043
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA OVERRULING THE ORANGE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION
THAT THE VILLAGE SANTA ANA SPECIFIC PLAN
PROJECT GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1561 W.
SUNFLOWER AVENUE, IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN FOR JOHN
WAYNE AIRPORT, INCLUDING SUPPORTIVE FINDINGS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines,
and declares as follows:
A. Justin McCusker, on behalf of South Coast Plaza, a California general
partnership ("Applicant" and "Property Owner"), is seeking approval of
various entitlements to facilitate the redevelopment of a 17.2-acre site into
a mixed-use urban village ("Project").
B. The project site is located along the southern edge of the City of Santa
Ana ("City"), on the northeast corner of West Sunflower Avenue and South
Bear Street, transected by South Plaza Drive. The project site includes 11
addresses (1561, 1611, 1621, 1631, 1641, and 1661 W. Sunflower
Avenue; 3820, 3840, and 3951 S Plaza Drive; and 3811 and 3851 S. Bear
Street) and seven parcels (412-131-10, 412-131-20, 412-131-21, 412-
451-01, 412-451-02, 412-451-03, and 412-451-04), collectively referred to
as 1561 W. Sunflower Avenue ("Project Site").
C. The Project entitlements include Amendment Application (AA) No. 2025-
01 to establish The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 6
(SP- 6)) and to approve a zone change for the Project Site from Specific
Development No. 48 (SD-48) to SP-6; Vesting Tentative Tract Map
(VTTM) No. 2025-06 (County Map No. 2023-159) to subdivide the Project
Site into six buildable lots; and Development Agreement (DA) No. 2025-01
outlining terms and conditions for the Project.
D. The Project entails, among other things, (1) demolition of the existing
structures on the Project Site and (2) redevelopment of the Project Site
into an urban village containing up to 1,583 residential units, 80,000
square feet of commercial/retail space, and 300,000 square feet of office
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 1 of 20
space, including 7.5 acres of publicly accessible open space and on-site
parking and landscaping.
E. The City is located partially within the area contained within the scope of
the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport
(JWA).
F. Consistent with the requirements of California Public Utilities Code (PUC)
Section 21676 et seq., because a portion of the proposed Project is within
the area covered by the AELUP, subsequent to its introduction, the Project
was submitted to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) for consideration of the Project's consistency with the AELUP.
G. At its meeting on June 19, 2025, the ALUC determined that the Project is
inconsistent with the AELUP of JWA.
H. On July 16, 2025, the City provided a notice of intent to overrule ALUC's
determination of inconsistency pursuant to PUC Section 21676,
subdivision (b).
I. On August 12, the Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) provided a response to the City's notice of intent
to overrule ALUC's inconsistency determination.
J. On August 15, 2025, ALUC provided a response to the City's notice of
intent to overrule ALUC's inconsistency determination and submitted
additional comments.
K. Pursuant to PUC sections 21670 and 21676, 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 PUC Section 21670.
L. Pursuant to City Council direction given at a City Council meeting on July
15, 2025, City staff has provided appropriate notice of the City Council's
intent to overrule the ALUC's determination.
M. On September 16, 2025, the City Council held a duly-noticed public
hearing regarding the City Council's intent to overrule the ALUC's
determination of inconsistency.
N. The City Council finds that the Project is in the best interests of the City
and is consistent with the purposes set forth in Public Utilities Code
Section 21670.
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 2 of 20
Section 2. The City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (Draft SEIR) that analyzed the Project's environmental impacts in accordance
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 52 days between April 17, 2025 and
June 9, 2025. The document was made available online at the City of Santa Ana
website and available for review at City Hall and the Southwest Senior Center 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 4, 2025. 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 Resolution for the Final SEIR (SCH No.
2020029087) as if fully set forth herein.
Section 3. The City Council is required to provide findings of fact supporting the
overrule of ALUC's determination of inconsistency as required by PUC 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 4. 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 Project is consistent with the purposes of the State
Aeronautics Act as stated in PUC Section 21670, and consistent with the AELUP.
Section 5. 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 Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project (SP-6) is
inconsistent with AELUP.
Section 6. 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 7. 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 8. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 3 of 20
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.
Section 9. 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 16fh day of September, 20254Va
Am zcua
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carva o, City Attorney
q
By:
—4*m—� —
Melissa M. Crosthwaite
Senior Assistant City Attorney
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 4 of 20
AYES: Councilmembers Amezcua Bacerra Hernandez Lopez,
Penaloza, Phan, Vazquez (7)
NOES: Councilmembers None (0)
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers None (0)
ABSENT: Councilmembers None 0
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, JENNIFER L. HALL, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Resolution No. 2025-043 to be the original resolution adopted by the
City Council of the City of Santa Ana on September 16 2025.
Date;
ni a all
City Clerk
an
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 5 of 20
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 VILLAGE SANTA ANA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
I. INTRODUCTION:
The City of Santa Ana ("City") is required to provide findings supporting the overrule of
the Orange 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 Village Santa Ana 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 (AELUP) for
John Wayne Airport (JWA) on April 17, 2008. The AELUP for JWA guides
development proposals to provide for orderly development of the airport and the
area surrounding the airport through implementation of the standards in Section
2.1 (aircraft noise, safety compatibility zones, building height restrictions).
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 6 of 20
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
(GAI 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 1561 W. Sunflower
Avenue 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 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. 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 Orange 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 315 feet above the existing ground level. Thus, FAA notification is
required.
H. On June 19, 2025, the City of Santa Ana presented the Project to the ALUC for a
determination of consistency with the JWA AELUP.
1. 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
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 7 of 20
height restrictions, the Project is inconsistent per Section 2.1.3 of the AELUP,
which states that "a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation does not
automatically equate to a Consistency determination by the ALUC and that the
Commission may find a project Inconsistent based on an Obstruction
determination", and 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 315 feet, which would penetrate the FAR Part 77
Horizontal Obstruction Imaginary Surface for JWA.
J. On June 19, 2025, 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.
Ill. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project. The Project consists of a specific plan
for a 17.2-acre site to allow for up to 1 ,583 residential units (encompassing
approximately 1,850,000 square feet of building space), 80,000 square feet of
retail space, 300,000 square feet of office space, and over 7.5 acres of common
open space. The Project requires discretionary approval of a tentative tract map,
amendment application (zone change) for a specific plan, development
agreement. 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 315 feet which would
penetrate the FAR Part 77 Horizontal Obstruction Imaginary Surface for JWA.
C. During the June 19, 2025 ALUC hearing on the Project, City staff and the project
applicant provided supplemental information about the nature of a specific plan,
how implementing projects will be reviewed, information on existing high-rises in
the vicinity, and FAA notification requirements for buildings exceeding 200 feet in
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 8 of 20
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 Sections 2.1.3 and 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
SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) and presented at the
ALUC hearing.
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 aircraft departures between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.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.
Resolution No, 2025-043
Page 9 of 20
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 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 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 the GPU guidelines.
j. Based on the foregoing, the Project will not result in the exposure of
City residents to excess noise within the meaning of PUC Section
21670.
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."
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 10 of 20
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 more than 0.40 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 6 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 approximately 1.5 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
Zones. Furthermore, the ALUC did not 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 also 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)
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 11 of 20
FAA notification surface to require the Filing of FAA Form 7460-1.
b. The buildings exceeding 200 feet in height in the Specific Plan area
are not within the geographic area or sloping, three-dimensional 50:1
FAA precision instrument Approach Surface to JWA Runway 20R
(the closest runway to the Project).
C. Penetrating a Civil Airport Imaginary Surface, like the Horizontal
Surface, does not in itself define a hazard. The Horizontal Surface is
not unequivocally airspace reserved for air navigation, it is an
imaginary surface used by the FAA to study whether obstructions are
potential hazards and whether any mitigation factors can be
considered (page 2-3 of FAA AC 150/5190-413, Airport land Use
Compatibility Planning). These FAA studies determine whether a
building poses a public safety issue or will adversely impact the
continued operation of the airport and other aeronautical operations.
1) Penetrating a Civil Airport Imaginary Surface is a trigger to file
a Form 7460 so that the FAA can conduct its aeronautical
study. The FAA, through these studies, determines whether a
building poses a public safety issue or will adversely impact
the continued operation of the airport and other aeronautical
operations. This is noted on Page 3-31 of the Caltrans California
Airport land Use Planning Handbook: "By definition, any
object that penetrates one of the imaginary surfaces is
deemed an obstruction to air navigation. However, not all
obstructions are necessarily hazards. The determination of
whether an object would be a hazard to air navigation is made
as part of an aeronautical study conducted by the FAA..."
2) As per 14 CFR Section 77.25, "The purpose of an
aeronautical study is to determine whether the aeronautical
effects of the specific proposal and, where appropriate, the
cumulative impact resulting from the proposed construction or
alteration when combined with the effects of other existing or
proposed structures, would constitute a hazard to air
navigation."
3) Further, in 14 CFR Section 77.29, the regulation specifies that
these studies include evaluating:
(1) The impact on arrival, departure, and en route
procedures for aircraft operating under visual flight rules,
(2) The impact on arrival, departure, and en route
procedures for aircraft operating under instrument flight
rules
(3) The impact on existing and planned public use airports
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 12 of 20
(4) Airport traffic capacity of existing public use airports and
public use airport development plans received before the
issuance of the final determination;
(5) Minimum obstacle clearance altitudes, minimum
instrument flight rules altitudes, approved or planned
instrument approach procedures, and departure procedures,
(6) The potential effect on A TC radar, direction finders, ATC
tower fine-of-sight visibility, and physical or electromagnetic
effects on air navigation, communication facilities, and other
surveillance systems;
(7) The aeronautical effects resulting from the cumulative
impact of a proposed construction or alteration of a structure
when combined with the effects of other existing or proposed
structures.
4) Even if a structure penetrates an imaginary surface, it still may
not be deemed a hazard by the FAA. As stated in 14 CFR
Section 77.31 (d):
A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation will be
issued when the aeronautical study concludes that the
proposed construction or alteration will exceed an
obstruction standard but would not have a substantial
aeronautical impact to air navigation. A Determination of No
Hazard to Air Navigation may include the following:
(1) Conditional provisions of a determination.
(2) Limitations necessary to minimize potential problems,
such as the use of temporary construction equipment.
(3) Supplemental notice requirements, when required.
(4) Marking and lighting recommendations, as
appropriate.
d. The FAA issued thirty-seven (37) Determination of No Hazard based
on 37 Form 7460-1's filed by South Coast Plaza for eight (8)
buildings. The heights of these eight buildings ranged from 95 feet
AGL to 279 feet AGL based on an initial architectural concept of
design. The Specific Plan does allow for development with a
maximum height of 25 stories/315 feet and also states that "an infill
project must comply with all applicable policies and associated
mitigation measures—e.g., sound attenuation, height limitation,
occupancy limits... consistent with the AELUP". When actual
development proposals are submitted to the City of Santa Ana,
sponsors will be required to submit a Form 7460 to the FAA as per
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 13 of 20
AELUP guidelines and FAA requirements.
e. The ALUC suggests that because four buildings exceeded
Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces by 26 to 107 feet under Part 77 and
required study by the FAA, that they are hazards to air navigation or
pose a public safety issue. Caltrans, in their response letter, does
the same. This is incorrect.
1) All eight buildings were deemed to not be hazards.
2) Four of the buildings had no conditions, other than filing a
Form 7460-2. As stated in those determinations:
(a) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure
does not exceed obstruction standards and would not
be a hazard to air navigation provided the following
condition(s), if any, is(are) met. It is required that FAA
Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or
Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned
or within 5 days after the construction reaches its
greatest height(7460-2, Part 2).
3) Four of the buildings had a marking/lighting condition, in
addition to filing a Form 7460-2. As stated in those
determinations:
(a) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure
would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by
aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it
is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following
condition(s) is(are) met. As a condition to this
Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in
accordance with FAA Advisory circular 7017460-1 M,
Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights-Chapters
4,5(Red),&15. Any failure or malfunction that lasts
more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or
flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position,
should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so
a Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) can be issued. As
soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the
same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2,
Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be a-filed
any time the.project is abandoned or within 5 days after
the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2,
Part 2).
f. Each future site-specific implementing development under the
Project will be required to be submitted through the City's
Resolution No, 2025-043
Page 14 of 20
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.
g. 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.
h. 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
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:
(a) Plans and policy for the safe use of the navigable
airspace (49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1); and
(b) "[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. §
40103(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).
i. 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.
j. 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.
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 15 of 20
k. Based on the foregoing, the Project is consistent with AELUP's
height standards.
I. The ALUC has uncertain statements within its AELUP regarding who
has final authority in determining whether a building is an obstruction
or hazard. Each entity that has aviation safety duties and
responsibilities related to this matter 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 ([14CFR] Part 77) entitled, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace. These regulations are the only
definitive standard available [emphasis added] and the
standard most generally used. In the aeronautical studies, the
FAA determines if a project is considered an Obstruction and
if a project is determined to be a Hazard to Air Navigation"
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) This is in contradiction to Section 2.1.3 of the AELUP which
states: "A 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 find a project Inconsistent
based on an Obstruction determination. 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."
4) Neither the AELUP, nor the ALUC specify what their criteria
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 16 of 20
are for their determination, which may differ from the FAA's
determination.
5) Section 2.1.3 adds reference to FAA Advisory Circular
150I5190- 4A, 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]."
6) FAA AC 150/5190-4B, Airport Land Use Compatibility
Planning, references 14 CFR Part 77/Obstruction Evaluation
(OE) Processes and Surfaces, and the FAA's standards and
regulations that protect the nation's airspace: "14 CFR Part
77, 'Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of Navigable
Airspace,' establishes standards for determining and defining
objects that may pose potential obstructions to air navigation.
14 CFR Part 77 was developed by the FAA to promote safety,
and the efficient use and preservation of the navigable
airspace. The airspace areas governed by 14 CFR Part 77 are
called 'imaginary surfaces.'
7) Caltrans Division of Aeronautics — Caltrans publishes the
Handbook in accordance with State Law with the purpose to,
"provide information to ALU Cs, 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 assessing potential airspace
obstructions in Section 4.5 Airspace Protection.
8) JWA--The FAA requires airport sponsors like Orange
County to accept specific grant assurances when they
acceptfederal 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:
(a) Hazard Removal and Mitigation. It will take appropriate
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 17 of 20
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.
(i) 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 land uses
on the site, and other uses in the vicinity 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.
(b) 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,
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 18 of 20
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.
M. If the ALUC does not agree with any FAA Determination, they can
petition the FAA.
1) As per 14 CFR Section 77.35 (a) "You may petition the FAA
official that issued the Determination of No Hazard to Air
Navigation to revise or reconsider the determination based on
new facts or to extend the effective period of the
determination, provided that: (1) Actual structural work of the
proposed construction or alteration, such as the laying of a
foundation, but not including excavation, has not been started;
and (2) The petition is submitted at least 15 days before the
expiration date of the Determination of No Hazard to Air
Navigation."
2) Further, and as per 14 CFR Section 77.37 (a) "If you are the
sponsor, provided a substantive aeronautical comment on a
proposal in an aeronautical study, or have a substantive
aeronautical comment on the proposal but were not given an
opportunity to state it, you may petition the FAA for a
discretionary review of a determination, revision, or extension
of a determination issued by the FAA."
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 do not inform the impact of overflights.
The ALUC provided limited arrival and departure flight tracks in its
ALUC staff report.
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 information presented
within the staff report packet dated June 19, 2025 of arrival flight
tracks and limited information on departure flight tracks are not
Resolution No. 2025-043
Page 19 of 20
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.
f. Heliports. Heliports are not a part of the Project.
5. 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. There is no substantiation that overflights of new residents would be
disturbing or annoying to those new residents. 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 was provided in the ALUC staff
report. These flight tracks are not unique and are fully accounted for
in the one year of overflights used to measure CNEL noise impacts
associated with JWA GAIP EIR.
C. Flight tracks limited information for arrivals and departures, are not
unique and are fully accounted for in the single-event noise contours
produced for the JWA GAIP EIR. The Project is located outside of
these single-event noise contours. 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 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.
d. 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. 2025-0 3
Page 20 of 20