Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 AELUP LETTER FOR JW AIRPORT 03-04-08AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 2008 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN (AELUP) FOR JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT (JWA) SUMMARY: The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County is in the process of updating the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport (JWA). City staff first reviewed the draft amendments in November of 2007. On November 20, 2007, the City Council authorized the Mayor to send a comment letter to the ALUC. A copy of the letter is attached to this report (Attachment A). Staff from several Orange County cities, including Tustin, met with ALUC staff to discuss our comments. In response to this input, the ALUC released a second draft of the proposed amendments on February 22, 2008, for review and comment (Attachment B). Staff has reviewed the second draft and has prepared the attached letter (Attachment C) for the Council's consideration. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign and send the attached comment letter (Attachment C) to the ALUC. FISCAL IMPACT: Other than minor fiscal impacts associated with the staff resources required to process potential amendments to the City's General Plan or Zoning Code or to applicable specific plans, there is no direct fiscal impact associated with the proposed amendments to the AELUP. DISCUSSION The ALUC statute was adopted in the late 1960s with two primary stated duties: to prepare compatibility plans and to review local land agency land use actions and airport plans. In fulfilling the first duty, the ALUC is required to prepare and adopt an Airport Environs Land Use Plan (ALEUP) for each of the airports within its jurisdiction. In fulfilling the second City Council Report Airport Environs Land Use Plan March 4, 2008 Page 2 duty, they are to review the plans, regulations, and other actions of local agencies and airport operators. There are limitations in that the ALUC has no authority over existing land uses regardless of whether such uses are incompatible with airport activities, and they do not have control over airport operations. The ALUC does, however, review any amendment of a general plan, specific plan, adoption of a zoning ordinance or building regulation ("projects") within the planning areas established by the ALUC. These projects must be submitted to the ALUC to determine consistency with the AELUP. The ALUC is in the process of amending the AELUP. City staff first reviewed the draft amendments in November of 2007. On November 20, 2007, the City Council authorized the Mayor to send a comment letter to the ALUC. A copy of the letter is attached to this report (Attachment A). Some of the proposed amendments in the first draft were of concern to the City of Tustin. However, staff from several Orange County cities, including Tustin, met with ALUC staff to discuss our comments, and much of the proposed language in the first draft that was of concern to local cities has been removed or revised in the second draft, which was released for review and comment on February 22, 2008 (Attachment B). The ALUC staff has requested comments by March 10, 2008. Staff has reviewed the second draft and has prepared the attached letter (Attachment C) for the Council's consideration. Depending on the nature and extent of the proposed amendments, the City may be required to update its General Plan and/or Zoning Code and any applicable specific plan, if necessary, to be consistent with the AELUP within 180 days. Scott Reekstin Senior Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A: Comment Letter Dated December 10, 2007 B: Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport -Proposed Amendments C: Draft Comment Letter S:\Cdd\CCREPORT/AELUP Second Review..Doc ATTACHMENT A Comment Letter dated December 10, 2007 Office of the City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573.3010 December 10, 2007 Ms. Karl Rigoni Executive Officer Airport Land Use Commission 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF 2007 PROPOSED JWA AELUP AMENDMENTS Dear Ms. Rigoni: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed amendments to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). Thank you also for granting an extensbn of time to the City of Tustin to submit comments. The Tustin City Council is particularly concerned about proposed amendments pertaining to height limitations, navigation easements, deed disclosures, signage, and proximity discosures. However, the Council does understand the importance of preserving navigable airspace and the consequences that may result from obstructions which penetrate and/or interfere with this airspace. Therefore, the Council would not support any amendment to the AELUP or any policy that would result in a further diversion of flight patterns over Tustin. The City of Tustin has identified the following concerns regarding the proposed amendments: Draft AELUP Paae 2 Paraaraoh 2 and Paae 14 Paraaraoh 3 - As currently proposed, the amendments would require that any proposed structure in the County that is more than 200 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) of its site be submitted to the ALUC for review. Such a requirement should only apply to structures within the ALUC's Planning Area and not throughout the County. If the intent of this proposed requirement is to notify the ALUC, then this requirement should be clarified and a more specific process for such notification should be clearly identffied. Jerry Amante, Mayor Doug Davert, Mayor Pro Tem Lou Bone Tony iCawashima Jim Palmer Ms. Kari Rigoni December 10, 2007 Page Two Draft AELUP. Pages 29 and 30 -The proposed amendments include seven policies that are recommended for inclusion in general plans. It is our understanding that these policies would assist an agency in being deemed a consistent agency by the ALUC and that these policies are to be advisory only. Therefore, we request that they be removed completely from the AELUP. General Comments It is unclear to the City of Tustin whether the Planning Area for John Wayne Airport includes the ground level of the entire area depicted within the FAR Part 77 John Wayne Airport Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces (Appendix D) or only the airspace that penetrates the imaginary surface within the depicted area. This issue is of significant importance to Tustin and should be clarified in the AELUP. It is our understanding, that ALUC staff will be conducting additanal outreach to the affected cities and will be making additional refinements to the draft amendments before the document is presented to the ALUC Board for consideration. We bok forward to reviewing the refinements and providing additional comments at that time. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Elizabeth Binsack at (714) 573-3031. Sincerely, Jerry Amante Mayor cc: William A. Huston Elizabeth Binsack Dana Ogdon Scott Reekstin SR/Airpat/AELUP Amendmerrta Commerrt Letter 2007.doc ATTACHMENT B Airport Environs Land Use for John Wayne Airport Proposed Amendments Airport Land Use Commission AIRPORT ENVIRONS ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN for JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT Amended: March 20, 2008 __. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN 2008 Text of Plan Adopted -April 17, 1975 Marine Cops Air Station, E1 Toro Adopted -April 17, 1975 Orange County Airport Adopted -May 15, 1975 Fullel-ton Municipal Airport Adopted -June 5, 1975 First Revised Edition Adopted -June 30, 1983 Updated for Amendments Adopted - Thru December 19, 1985 Second Revised Edition Adopted -September 15, 1988 1990 Airport Environs Land Use Plan Amendment Adopted -November 29, 1990 1994 Airport Environs Land Use Plan Amendment Adopted -December 15, 1994 1995 Airport Environs Land Use Plan Amendment Adopted -November 16, 1995 2002 Airport Environs Land Use Plan Amendment Adopted -December 19, 2002 2005 Confirm nonapplicability of AELUP for MCAS El Toro Adopted July 21, 2005 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY MEMBERSHIP AS OF 2008 Commissioners Gerald Bresnahan, Chairman Rod Propst, Vice-Chairman Herman F. Beverburg Jon Domitru Thomas F. O'Malley, Jim Righeimer Don Webb Alternates Patricia Campbell Winnie Houston Stephen Beverburg Doug Davert Leonard Kranser Randy Teteak Homer Bludau Staff Kari A. Rigoni, Executive Officer Lea G. Umnas and Sue Tanner TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1.0 -INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1.2 Purpose and Scope 1.3 Authority 2 l.4 Requirements 3 1.5 Concept of the Planning Document 4 1.6 Applicability 4 1.7 Glossary/Definitions 6 SECTION 2 .0 -PLANNING GUIDELINES 11 2.1 Standards and Criteria 11 2.1.1 Aircraft Noise 11 2.1.2. Safety Compatibility Zones 12 2.1.3 Building Height Restrictions 13 2.1.4 Air Transportation 15 2.1.5 Airports/Heliports/Helistops 15 2.1.6 Planning Areas - Airports 16 2.1.7 Planning Areas -New Airports 17 2.2 Establishment of Planning Areas 18 2.2.1 John Wayne Airport 18 SECTION 3.0 -LAND USE POLICIES 21 3.1 Concept 2 3.2 Land Use Policies 21 3.2.1 General Policy 21 3.2.2 Specific Policies 22 3.2.3 Noise Impact Zone "1" - High Noise Impact 24 3.2.4 Noise Impact Zone "2" -Moderate Noise Impact 25 -i- 3.2.5 Clear Zone "CZ"/Runway Protection Zone "RPZ", Extreme Crash Hazard 25 3.2.6 Height Restriction Zone 3.2.7 Airspace/Airport Inconsistency 2c~ 3.2.8 Avigation Easements 3.3 Specific Policies for Consistency Determinations SECTION 4.0 -IMPLEMENTATION 4.1 Statutes 4.2 General Plans and Specific Plans (Zoning) 4.3 Amendments to General Plans and Specific Plans (Zoning) 4.4 Zoning Ordinances and Building Regulations 4.5 Airport Master Plans 4.6 Other Submittals 3 4.7 Submittal Requirements 3 4.8 Submittal Deadlines 3 4.9 Acceptance of Submittal 4.10 Who May File 33 4.11 Commission Finding of lnconsistency .3 4.12 Inconsistent Local Agency 3. 4.13 Continuous Monitoring 3 4.14 Periodic Review 3 4.15 AELUP Amendments 34 APPENDICES Appendix A State Aeronautics Act and Airport Land Use Commission Law Appendix B Summary of Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 - "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace" Appendix C Pertinent Resolutions of the Airport Land Use Commission Appendix D Impact Zones Map, AELUP Novification area for JWA, Imaginary Surfaces Map: Airport Land Use Plan & Safety Zones (Approved JWA ALP March 2005. JWA Safety Zone Reference Map, Table B Basic Safety Compatibility Qualities Proposed for Deletion Appendix E: Summary of Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular No. 150/5190-4A, "A Model Zoning Ordinance" Appendix F: Airport and Heliport Regulations, California Code of Regulations Appendix G: Noise Standards for California Airports, California Code of Regulations Appendix H: Airport Land Use Commission - Referral Confirmation Notice Appendix I: Sample: Avigation Easements and Deed Notice SECTION 1.0 -INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background In 1967 the first Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) statute was adopted by the California legislature, according to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The legislation has been amended many times in the ensuing years. Particularly significant amendments occurred in 1982, 1984, 1994 and 2000. The 1982 amendments more clearly articulated the purpose of ALUCs, eliminated the reference to "achieve by zoning", required consistency between local general plans and zoning and ALUC compatibility plans, required that local agencies make findings of fact before overriding an ALUC decision and changed the vote required for an oven-ide from four-fifths to two-thirds. In 1984, amendments to compatibility plans were limited to once per year and immunity was extended to airports if an ALUC action is overridden by a local agency not owning the airport. In 1994 the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) statutes as applied to the preparation of environmental documents in the vicinity of airports was amended. Lead agencies are required to use the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook as a technical resource when assessing the airport- related noise and safety impacts of airport vicinity projects. In 2000, Section 21670(f) was added to clarify that special districts are among the local agencies to which airport land use planning laws are intended to apply. The 2002 amendment included clarification of various provisions of the AELUP including clarification of the option of an avigation easement as a project mitigatiun, specification of notification methods, and clarification of-a specific infill policy. The AELUP was also separated into individual stand-alone AELUP volumes for each airport in Orange County and a separate AELUP for Heliports. The purpose of ALUCs has remained essentially unchanged since the early years of the statutes. To fulfill its purpose ALUC has two specific duties according to the Handbook. • Prepare Compatibility Plans-Each commission is required to "prepare and adopt" an airport land use plan for each of the airports within its jurisdiction (Section 21674 (c) and 21675(a)). • Review Local Agency Land Use Actions and Airport Plans-The commissions' second duty is to "review the plans, regulations, and other actions of local agencies and airport operators..." (Section 21674(d)) The key limitations are 1) that they have no, authority over existing land uses regardless of whether such uses are incompatible with airport activities and 2) the "powers of the commission shall in no way be construed to give the commission jurisdiction over the operation of any airport." The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County was established in late 1969. Between 1970 and the actual adoption of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), the Commission made advisory comments on projects. The first AELUP elements were adopted by the Commission between April 17 and August 7, 1975. 1.2 Purpose and Scope This AELUP for John Wayne Airport is one of several AELUPs prepared for each of the airports in Orange County. The ALUC serves all the airports in Orange County which include John Wayne Airport (JWA), Fullerton Municipal Airport (FMA) and Joint Forces Training Base Los Alimitos. Additionally, there is an AELUP for Heliports. This land use compatibility plan intends, for the twenty year planning future for John Wayne Airport (See Appendix D for maps), to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and to ensure the continued operation of the airport. Specifically, the plan seeks to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. The implementation of this plan will forestall urban encroachment on the airport and will allow for its continued operation. This compatibility plan for John Wayne Airport affects the cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, and Tustin, as well as unincorporated areas of the County of Orange. Furthermore, per Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, Section 77.13(a), notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required for any proposed structure enure than 200 Feet Ahove Ground Level (AGL) of its site. Notices to the FAA provide a basis for evaluating project impacts on operational procedures and air navigation. To coincide with the FAA regulation, the ALUC also requires notification of all such proposals which may result in referral to ALUC. 1.3 Authority Public Utilities Code (PUC) 21676(a) requires each local agency whose General Plan includes areas covered by an airport land use commission plan to submit a copy of its general plan or specific plans (each reference to specific plan also includes conventional zoning and planned community zoning) to the airport land use commission. If the plan or plans are inconsistent with the commission's plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall have another hearing to reconsider its plans. The local agency may overrule the commission after such hearing by atwo-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in Section 21670. Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code requires that prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary established by the airport land use commission pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall first refer the proposed action to the commission. If the commission determines that the proposed action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The local agency may, after a public hearing, overrule the commission by atwo-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in Section 21670. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough `Y Formatted: Centered COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FULLERTON MUNICIPAL ~"-~-~--:~ AIRPORT ~~; s ~ " JOINT FORCES !`sue ~ '--' TRAINING BASE `` "= ~. ~~ , r __ _ + ._ LOS ALAMIT05 `~`~' -~ -r- f ~~~ ~ ~ _ ~: fr..~,~..1 r ~ ss ~ ~t -~=~' ' i . JOHN WAYN E AIRPORT sy 00 ti ~~ ~T~ '~ .,` vow r . ~` yr - II } ~~~ \~ '~ °\ 1 f '~ .e~ / /l i ,r ~! , a _. ~ i'~w~~~F ~'-~' FOREOT ~A~ t t ~ l~ ~ ~ ~ ~r~ ~j ~~- ~~ ' AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN ~,, `~"' t ~`,, AIRPORT PLANNING AREAS ";,, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ," NOTE: ALL CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION OF STRUCTURES WITHIN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AT ELEVATIONS MORE THAN 200 FT. ABOVE GROUND LEVEL REQUIRE FAA AND ALUC NOTIFICATION. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION for ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT PLANNING AREAS Figure 1 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 50,000 5,000 Scale In Feet CERTIFICATION Adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Kari A. Rigoni, Executive Officer Date Section Z 1676(c) requires that each public agency owning any airport within the boundaries of an airpot-t land use commission plan shall, prior to modification of its airport master plan, refer each proposed change to the airport land use commission. If the commission determines that the proposed action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The public agency may, after a public hearing, overrule the commission by atwo-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in Section 21670. Section 21676.(d) requires that each commission determination pursuant to subdivision (b) Formatted: strikethrough or (c) shall be made within 60 days from the date of referral of the proposed action. If a commission fails to make the determination within that period, the proposed action shall be deemed consistent with the commission's plan. Section 21676.5(a) and (b) provides that: (a) If the commission finds that a local agency has not revised its general plan or specific plan or overruled the commission by atwo-thirds vote of its governing body after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes as stated in Section 21670, the commission may require that the local agency submit all subsequent actions, regulations, and permits to the commission for review until its general plan or specific plan is revised or the specific findings are made. If, in the determination of the commission, an action, regulation, or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the commission plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its plan. The local agency may overrule the commission after the hearing by atwo-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in Section 21670. (b) Whenever the local agency has revised its general plan or specific plan or has overruled the commission pursuant to subdivision (a), the proposed action of the local agency shall not be subject to further commission review, unless the commission and the local agency agree that individual projects shall be reviewed by the commission. 1.4 Requirements Section 21675 of the California Public Utilities Code specifies that the comprehensive land use plans will: "(a) ...provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The commission plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years. In formulating a land use plan, the commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and determine building standards, including , 3 soundproofing adjacent to airports, within the planning area. The comprehensive land use plan shall be reviewed as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purposes, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year. (see Appendix A for state law) (b) The commission may include, within its plan formulated pursuant to sub-division (a), the area within the jurisdiction of the commission surrounding any federal military airport for all of the purposes specified in subdivision (a) ...." The Commission is prohibited from exercising any authority over the operations of any airport. 1.5 Concept of the Planning Document This document has been designed to reflect a uniform approach to planning for John Wayne Airport. Noise and safety impacts have been identified for each airport by using similar standards and criteria except where the size of an airport or type of aircraft operations dictated otherwise. All building height restrictions will have as their ultimate limits the imaginary surfaces as applicable and as defined in Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. When a project is proposed by an agency, which exceeds the height limits established by FAR Part 77, a determination will be made by the commission on a case by case basis. Land use policies have been established on the basis of noise and safety impacts on the welfare of the public, and on the building height and activity impacts upon the continued operation of the airport. The concepts and processes presented below illustrate the commission's efforts to ensure that land use policies were determined only by the most incontrovertible methods. 1.6 Applicability Section 21670(a)(2) of the Public Utilities Code indicates that a commission's authority is applicable only within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. 1.6.1 Section 21674.7 provides that an airport land use commission that formulates, adopts or amends a comprehensive airport land use plan shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook ("Handbook") published by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation. The Handbook advises that while existing development which is incompatible becomes a nonconforming use with respect to ALUC criteria, any redevelopment of those areas would be subject to ALUC policies. 1.6.2 "Existing Land Use" is defined by the Commission as a property already "devoted to" a certain use or a use that has been vested by virtue of the fact that a property developer has: -4- "~ Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough `Formatted: Centered • Obtained a valid building permit (as distinguished from merely a foundation or other specific permit); and • Performed substantial work; and • Incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon the permit. or • Entered into a Development Agreement or • Obtained a Vesting Tentative Map 1.6.3 The Commission believes that the limitation on its authority over existing land uses applies only to the extent that the use remains constant. If new or increased compatibility conflicts would result and to the extent that such land use changes require discretionary approval on the part of a county or city, the Commission policy is to review expansion, conversion, or redevelopment of existing uses. 1.6.4 Infill development is development proposed in a location where some development already exists. These are commonly residual vacant areas within already established areas. These existing areas may represent either compatible or incompatible land uses within the Commission's planning area for an airport. The Commission recognizes that while a particular non-conforming infill use would likely be inconsistent with its compatibility plan, the introduction of a use which is compatible into a developed area may raise broader community planning issues. The Commission, therefore, will weigh both the severity of the incompatibility and the integrity of the already developed area. Infill projects are those submitted to the Commission pursuant to applicable law which seek to develop residual vacant areas within established neighborhoods. Such existing neighborhoods may represent either compatible or incompatible land uses within an airport's planning areas. An infill project must comply with all applicable Specific Policies (and their associated mitigation measures, such as sound attenuation, height limitation, occupancy limits, etc.) in order to be found consistent with this AELUP. The Commission will not find an infill project to be consistent with this AELUP, if the project would result in an increase of incompatible land use within the airport's planning areas. Examples of potentially incompatible infill projects include, but are not limited to, the development of: dwelling units within the 65 CNEL Contour, high-occupancy buildings within an APZ, and excessively tall structures deleterious to the navigable airspace. 1.6.5 The Commission will utilize the following additional criteria in determining consistency/inconsistency of an infill action/project within the applicable planning area(s): The portions of the planning area within which infill is to be permitted (infill within the runway protection zone would be prohibited, for example); Formatted: Centered -5- • The maximum size of a parcel or parcels on which infill is to be allowed; • The extent to which the site must be bounded by similar uses (and not extend the perimeter of incompatible uses); • The density and/or intensity of development allowed relative to that of the surrounding uses and the otherwise applicable compatibility criteria; and • Other applicable development conditions (such as easement dedications or special structural noise level attenuation requirements) which must be met. 1.6.6 Conditions such as acoustical treatment of structures, recorded deed notices, aigation easement dedication (if offered by a local agency or project proponent), buyer awareness measures, real estate disclosure statements, and building occupancy limits may be considered and applied by the Commission to find an infill projectlaction consistent. 1.7 Glossary/Definitions ADD - Average Daily Departure. AELUP - Airport Environs Land Use Plan. (A land use compatibility plan referred to in Public Utilities Code Section 21675.) AERONAUTICAL - The technical analysis performed by the Federal Aviation STUDY Administration (FAA) pursuant to the tiling of Form 7460-1 "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" by a project proponent. AIRPORT - Any public or military airport, airstation, or air facility within Orange County, California. AIRPORT - The area in which current or future airport-related noise, over- INFLUENCE flight, safety, and/or airspace protection factors may significantly AREA affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. In most instances, the airport influence area is designated by the ALUC as its planning area boundary for the airport and the two terms can be considered synonymous. AIRSPACE - The technical analysis performed by the FAA pursuant to the ANALYSIS filing of Form 7480-1 "Notice of Landing Area Proposal" by a project proponent. -6- Formatted: Font: Times New ~_ 1 Roman, Strikethrough _^ _ _~~ J Formatted: Centered _ _ j AVIGATION - Avigation easement is generally defined by the Caltrans EASEMENT Aeronautics Division as: "A type of easement which typically conveys the following rights: aright-of-way for free and unobstructed passage of aircraft through the airspace over the property at any altitude above a surface specified in the easement... a right to subject the property to noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, and fuel particle emissions associated with normal airport activity; a right to prohibit the erection or growth of any structure, tree, or other object that would enter the acquired airspace; aright-of-entry onto the property with proper advance notice for the purpose of removing, marking, or lighting any structure or other object that enters the acquired airspace; a right to prohibit electrical interference, glare, misleading lights, visual impairments, and other hazards to aircraft flight from being created on the property." (Caltrans Division of Aeronautics California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook dated January 2, 2002 or as revised by Caltrans; Appendix D, pp. D-3/4). A sample avigation easement is included in Appendix, I. CNEL - Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL is the energy average noise level measured in A-level fora 24-hour period, with different weighting factors for the hourly noise levels occurring during the daytime (0700 to 1900, 0 dB weighting), evening (1900 to 2200, 5 dB weighting), and nighttime (2200 to 0700, 10 dB weighting) periods.] COMMISSION - The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County dB(A) - A-Weighted sound pressure level or A-level is the sound pressure level which has been filtered or weighted to quantitatively reduce the effect of the low frequency noise. It was designed to approximate the response of the human ear to sound. A-level is measured in units of decibels. FAA - Federal Aviation Administration. FAR - Federal Aviation Regulations. FREE-STANDING - A building which does not share a common wall BUILDING with another building. HABITABLE - Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code ROOM other applicable regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms and similar spaces. Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Centered -7- HELIPORT - An identifiable area on land or water, including any building or facilities thereon, used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters. Does not include temporary landing and takeoff sites, as defined in the California Aeronautics Act. Refueling and overnight maintenance are permitted. HELISTOP - An identifiable area on land or water, including any building or facilities thereon, used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters. Does not include temporary landing and takeoff sites as defined in the California Aeronautics Act. Refueling and overnight maintenance are not permitted. INFILL - Development which takes place on vacant property largely surrounded by existing development, especially development which is similar in character. LOCAL AGENCY - The County of Orange, or any city or special district within Orange County. NEW AIRPORT - Any new public airport that is proposed to be constructed and operated by a local agency(ies) such as county(ies), city(ies), or other special district(s) or authorities. NOISE - Appropriate written notification, usually in the form of DISCLOSURE aiitation easement, deed notice, or real estate disclosure statement, or final tract or parcel map, which informs the future resident of aircraft noise. Noise disclosure examples are presented in AELUP Section 3.3. NOTICE OF -Notice disclosure method defined by Section 11010 of the AIRPORT IN Business and Professions Code. VICINITY OBSTRUCTION - Any object of natural growth, terrain or permanent or temporary construction or alteration, including equipment or materials used therein, the height of which exceeds the standards established in Subpart C of Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. OPERATION - Any single landing or approach performed by an aircraft. Also any single take-off or departure constitutes an operation. OUTDOOR - Spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically LIVING AREAS used for passive recreational activities or other noise-sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, Jacuzzi areas, etc. associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting areas associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of Formatted: Centered -8- worship which have a significant role in services or other noise- sensitive activities; and outdoor school facilities routinely used for educational purposes which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, maintenance areas, and storage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used for patient activities; outdoor areas associated with places of worship and principally used for short- term social gatherings. OVERRIDE - See "Overrule" below. OVERRULE -The formal procedure set forth in PUC Sections 21675.1, 21676, 21676.5, and 21677 whereby a local agency's governing body may overrule an ALUC determination of inconsistency. PLANNING AREA - Public Utilities Code Section 21675(c) requires that area surrounding any airport which affects, or is affected by, aircraft operations be embraced by the boundaries of its compatibility plan. The planning area sets limits of the area within which proposed land use projects are to be referred to the ALUC for review. With certain exceptions, planning area boundaries are determined by the location and configuration of the airport included in the plan, and the extent of the noise and safety impacts associated with that airport. The overall planning area is the furthest extent of the 60 CNEL Contour, the FAR Part 77 Notification Surface and the runway safety zones associated with the airport. POLICY - Aline adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors IMPLEMENTATION in 1985 which corresponds to the location of the 65-decibel LINE CNEL contour for John Wayne Airport. This line is based on the highest noise level at a given location utilizing noise projections from both the 1990 and 2005 project case contours developed as part of the 1985 John Wayne Airport Master Plan (See Section 2.2.1) Thee contours continue to bc; applicable as a result ut the must recent JWA Airport Layout Plan ALP) approval on March 24, 2005. PUC - Public Utilities Code of the California Codes. REDEVELOPMENT -The expansion or conversion of an existing land use, whether compatible or incompatible within an airport environs, which would result in an intensified use, or in a new use which may or may not be compatible. RUNWAY - A trapezoidal area off each end of a runway used to enhance PROTECTION the protection of people and property on the ground. The ZONE (CLEAR ZONE) innermost of the safety zones. Formatted: Centered -9- Saftey Zones: Safety and compatibility zones depict which land uses are acceptable and which are unacceptable in various portions of airport environs. Sec: Appendix D for safety zone exhibit and definitions for JWA. SINGLE EVENT - In decibels, shall mean the sound exposure level of a single event, NOISE EXPOSURE such as an aircraft fly-by, measured over the time interval LEVEL (SENEL) between the initial and final times for which the sound level of a single event exceeds the threshold sound level. SENEL is an A- weighted measure of an individual flyover, which time-integrates the level accumulated during this event with reference to a duration of one second. Because of this integration process, SENEL takes into consideration both the duration and the magnitude of the noise signal. (Formatted: Centered -10- SECTION 2.0 -PLANNING GUIDELINES Guidelines for airport land use planning have been set down in a variety of cohesive approaches and systematic forms. Civilian and military authorities have established regulations or statutes which specify numerous methodologies 1'or mitigating the incompatibilities between an airport and its environs, and such incompatibilities have been adequately defined. Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et. seq. provides general planning and procedural guidance while directing a land use commission to provide "for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport," and to "safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general." Toward these ends, Sections 21675 and 21674 further enables the Commission to "develop height restrictions on buildings", to specify the "use of land", to determine "building standards, including sound-proofing"; and to "assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of all new airports and in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses." The Commission is also empowered to "coordinate planning at the state, regional and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety, and welfare." The California Department of Transportation's California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, provides further guidelines, which the commission is bound by law to utilize in the preparation of this AELUP. Similarly, legislation passed in 1994 requires that, when preparing an environmental impact report for any project situated within an airport influence area as defined in an ALUC compatibility plan (or, if a compatibility plan has not been adopted, within two nautical miles of a public-use airport), lead agencies shall utilize the Handbook as a technical resource with respect to airport noise and safety compatibility issues. (Public Resources Code, Section 21096) In the formulation and amendment of this plan, the Commission has made every effort to study and to evaluate all available viewpoints regarding airport land use planning. Historically, the Commission has held formal public hearings to gather input in addition to its key reliance on the Caltrans Handbook. 2.1 Standards and Criteria The following sections describe the standards and criteria adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County for establishing planning boundaries and the reasoning of the Commission in choosing them. 2.1.1 Aircraft Noise In adopting the Community Noise Equivalent Level Methodology, Resolution No. 75-1 of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County states that: " ...aircraft noise emanating from airports may be incompatible with the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of an airport and in order to measure the impact of aircraft noise on inhabitants within the vicinity of an airport, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County adopts the Community Noise Equivalent Level Methodology as specified in the Noise Formatted: Centered -11- Standards for California Airports (Title 21, California Code of Regulations)." Historically, the Commission investigated other aircraft noise description systems including Composite Noise Rating, Noise Exposure Forecast, Noise and Number Index, and Aircraft. Sound Description System. The Commission discussed at length the variability of aircraft noise due to atmospheric conditions and aircraft operations and the inahility of any sound measurement system to provide a completely accurate noise description at all times. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) system was adopted by the Commission for the following reasons: (1) the system is set forth in the State Code of Regulations (Title 21, California Code of Regulations) and therefore is imbued with legal authority; and (2) the Noise Insulation Standards in the State Housing Law (Title 25, California Code of Regulations) specify the use of the CNEL system to describe intrusive noise levels and prescribe soundproofing; and (3) the CNEL system most accurately describes those noise levels prescribed in the Noise Element of the Orange County General Plan. The 60 dB CNEL contour line was chosen as a planning boundary by the Commission for the following reasons: (1) this level is prescribed in the California Noise Insulation Standards as the criterion for enforcing the use of sound insulation; and (2) the flexible nature of a CNEL contour requires that some leeway from the 65 dB level, prescribed in the Noise Standards for California Airports, be created in older to protect inhabitants of the airport environs from noise. The CNEL methodology has been adopted for, and applies to, all airports in Orange County, both civilian and military. 2.1.2 Safety Compatibility Zones Formatted Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough Formatted~ _Centered _ - 12- Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough !' Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough Safety and compatibility zones depict which land uses are acceptable and which are unacceptable in various portions of airport environs. The purpose of these zones is to support the continued use and operation of an aitport 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. The John Wayne Airport Safety Compatibility Zones are defined in the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) approved by FAA in March 2005. These zones are shown in Appendix D and were developed for the runways at J WA using the California Airport Land -Use Planning Handbook January 2002 Edition. The following Safety Compatibility Zones are defined for the "Short General Aviation Runway'' (length less than 4,000 feet) and the "Medium General Aviation Runway" (length 4,000 to 5,999 feet): Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone Zone 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zune Zone; 3; Inner Turning Zone Zone 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone Zone 5: Sideline Zone Zune 6: Traffic Pattern Zone These zones are further described in the California Arrport Land Use Planning Handbook, 2002 Edition, Chapter 9, Table 9B). See Appendix D to view Table 9B. 2.1.3 Building Height Restrictions 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 (FAR Part 77) entitled, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace." These regulations are the only definitive standard available and the standard most generally used. In order to ensure that buildings which might affect the continued operations of airports are not built in their vicinities, the Commission has incorporated the standards for determining obstructions and FAR Part 77 definitions, of the "imaginary and notification surfaces" for airports, as the guidelines for height limits. The "imaginary surfaces" are defined by means of elevations, heights and slopes in relation to individual airports, the spaces above which are reserved to air navigation. 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, or other studies Formatted: Centered -13- deemed necessary by the Commission, in order to determine if a structure is an "obstruction." Building or structural heights are limited to the distance between the ground elevation of the site and an elevation that has been determined will not adversely effect an airport or aeronautical operations, nor navigational-aid siting criteria, Includin`r intc;rle:rence with navi`Tational-aids or published flight paths and procedures. The FAA uses the 100:1 notification surface to help identify projects that may interfere with airport operations. A project exceeding the 100:1 notification surface is not necessarily incompatible but rather requires that the FAA be notified. so they can conduct an aeronautical study. Projects that penetrate the 100:1 notification surface must file Form 7460-1 with the FAA. See Appendix D to view the FAR Part 77 Notification Area and Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JWA. 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 Naivigation. 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. Commission review of individual cases will be guided by FAR Part 77, and by FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/5190-4A, as published on December 14, 1987 and entitled "A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects Around Airports" (Appendix F). This document has been promulgated by the FAA expressly to guide local agencies in the preparation of specialized zoning regulations, and in the conduct of individual case reviews. The Advisory Circular complements FAR Part 77, and together they provide an overall means to protect the navigable airspace at local airports. In addition, per FAR Part 77, Section 77.13(a), notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required for any proposed structure more than 200 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) of its site. To coincide with this regulation, the ALUC also requires notification for such protects regardless of where within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange the project would be located. This may or may not result in referral of a protect to the ALUC. The results of an aeronautical study conducted by the FAA pursuant to FAR Part 77.1.3 will be utilized to help determine if a structure will have an adverse effect on the airport or on aeronautical operations. If the proposed object is concluded to be a potential hazard to air navigation, the FAA may object to its construction, examine, possible revisions of the proposal to eliminate the problem, require that the obiect be appropriately marked and lighted as an airspace obstruction, and/or initiate changes to the aircraft flight procedures for the airport so as to account for the object. The ALUC considers projects that are a hazard to air navigation to be Inconsistent with the AELUP for JWA. Formatted: Font: Itaiic Formatted: Centered -14- 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. In those portions of the height restriction planning areas that lie outside of the Formatted: Font: Times New Safety Zones and 60 dB CNEL Contours, or other areas of Roman, striketnrough special concern as delineated by the FAA and adopted by the Commission, local agencies are required to submit only those matters which contemplate structures that would penetrate the imaginary surfaces as defined in FAR Part 77.13, 77.25, or 77.28 which have been designated for each individual airport for height restriction referral. 2.1.4 Air Transportation The Commission is charged by PUC Section 21674 "to coordinate planning at the state, regional, and local levels, so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation while, at the same time, protecting the public health, safety and welfare." The preparation and dissemination of the AELUPs are themselves important long-term steps in fulfilling this duty. 2.1.5 Airports/Heliports/Helistops The Commission is charged with reviewing and acting on proposed airport master plans, expansion of existing airports, and plans for construction of new airports and heliports within its jurisdiction and with making recommendations directly to the California Department of Transportation/Aeronautics Division, regarding the state airport heliport permit under Section 21661.5 of the California Public Utilities Code. Heliports/helistops to be located at an existing airport do not require Commission review. Emergency/Temporary landing sites do not need to be submitted to the Commission. The Commission review of proposed projects for airports/heliports/helistops is initiated by the local agency's referral of the proponent's request for a development permit to construct and operate an airport/heliport/helistop. (Note that per Section 3534(b)(5) of the California Code of Regulations, a referral for a heliport/helistop may be directly from the applicant/sponsor.) A finding by the Commission regarding consistency of the proposed project with this plan will be forwarded to the local jurisdiction for their consideration. Prior to a heliport referral to ALUC, the applicant must obtain an Airspace Analysis from the FAA. To obtain this analysis the applicant must file FAA form 7480-1 Notice of Landing Area Proposal. Formatted: Centered -15- The information needed for review of the proposed airport/heliport/helistop by the Commission includes the following: 1. Location of the proposed airport/heliportlhelistop (street address). 2. Purpose of request: Personal, private, or commercial use of airport/ heliport/helistop. 3. General Plan and zoning of the site. 4. Description of area and adjoining properties. 5. Approach/departure paths. 6. Anticipated number of approaches and departures (counted separately) during; a specified time interval (day, week, month). 7. Potential for creating a nuisance due to noise generated by the operation of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters (Noise Study may be required). 8. Potential for creating an accident hazard (Accident Probability Study may be required). 9. Federal Aviation Administration Airspace Analysis (Form 7480). 10. Type of craft proposed to be used and noise output of craft. 11. Description of proposed operations/facilities (maintenance, refueling, etc.). 12. Depiction of proposed Helipad Protection Zone per Section 2.1.2 of the Heliport AELUP. Policies and criteria for heliports can be found in the ALUC's separate Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Heliports. 2.1.6 Planning Areas - Airports Designated planning areas for each Airport are set forth in Section 2.2. (See Appendix D) The Commission evaluated the factors germane to its mandated duties and decided that the planning areas shall be based on the following criteria: 1. Areas that are within the 60 dB CNEL contour, as specified for each individual airport in Section 2.2 of the AELUP. 2. Areas that are within the Runway Protection Zones or Safety Zones, as specified for each individual airport in Section 2.2 of the AELUP. - 16- Deleted: . Formatted: Font: Italic Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough Formatted: Centered 3. Areas subject to building height restrictions, as specified for each individual airport in Suction 2.2 of the AELUP. See the Height Restriction Zone Map and the Obstruction imaginary Surfaces Map in Appendix D. 4. In addition to the criteria listed above in items 1-3, the entire County shall be deemed within the Commission's planning area for development proposals (as defined in PUC Section 21676(b)) which are: a. Germano to air transportation i.e., sites of developments whose proposed populations are so large as to have an effect on air transportation. b. Outside the height restriction planning area specified for each individual airport in Section 2.2 of the AELUP, but which are planned to be built to a height of more than 200 feet above ground level, and which in the opinion of the local agency, the FAA, or the Commission, may pose an adverse aeronautical effect, as generally defined in AELUP Section 3.2.1, must be submitted to the Commission. c. Within 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of at least 3,200' in length at JWA, which in the opinion of the local agency, the FAA, or the Commission would interfere with visual or electronic navigation systems or would threaten the operation of an airport or decrease its utility, by producing or causing excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, electronic interference, or by attracting birds, must be submitted to the Commission. In those portions of the planning areas that lie outside of the Runway Formatted: Font: Times New Protection Zones or Safety Zones and 60 dB CNEL contours or Roman, Strikethrough other areas of special concern as specified in Items 4a, 4b, or 4c, local agencies are Formatted: Font: Times New required to submit only those matters which contemplate or permit structures that Roman, Strikethrough would penetrate the imaginary sw-faces as defined in FAR Part 77.13, 77.25, or 77.28 which have been designated for each individual airport for height restriction referral. A local jurisdiction's legislative acts (general plan or specific plan amendments, including conventional zoning and Planned Communities, zoning ordinances or building regulations and airport plans) shall be referred to the Commission pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b). 2.1.7 Planning Areas -New Airports Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5 states that no application for the construction of a new airport may be submitted to any local, regional, state or federal agency unless that plan has been both: 1. Approved by the board of supervisors of the county, or the city council of the city, in which the airport is to be located; and Formatted: Centered - 17 - Submitted to and acted upon by the Commission. During the process by the local land use authority and the FAA to certify/approve an EIRIEIS and a Master Plan for the development of a new airport, the Commission shall review the EIR/EIS and/or Master Plan for consistency with, and possible future inclusion in, Section 2.2 of the AELUP. The Commission will adopt the projected noise contours presented in the EIR/EIS and/or Master Plan based on the selected alternative runway alignment and future operational projections. Likewise, the Commission will adopt the FAR Part 77 -height restriction criteria based on the selected alternative or Master Plan project. These will form the basis for the planning area for Commission referral until revised data can be generated based on an evaluation of actual operations. New or amended Safety and Formatted Font Times New i Runway Protection Zones may be considered for possible establishment as a planning area if called for as a mitigation in the EIR/EIS or included in the Formatted: Font: Times New Master Plan. Other factors such as light and glare or smoke will also be considered if called for in the EIR/EIS and/or Master Plan. 2.2 Establishment of Planning Areas In adopting the various standards and criteria, the Commission applied several appropriate systems and methodologies to the individual airports. The following section details the considerations of the Commission in fixing the particular contours and boundaries around John Wayne Airport. 2.2.1 John Wayne Airport, SNA, Orange County John Wayne Airport, Orange County, was formerly called Orange County Airport. CNEL CONTOURS -Formerly, the Commission utilized those contours developed by Wyle Laboratories in February 1975. In February, 1985, the Board of Supervisors adopted the John Wayne Airport Master Plan (AMP) and the Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program (LUCP). The Airport Master Plan includes a limit of 73 average daily departures (ADDS) for most commercial jet operations. In preparing the LUCP, a projected 65 dB CNEL noise contour reflecting expected future flight levels and a reasonable mix of aircraft types was utilized. This contour, referred to as the Project Case and depicted in EIR 508 (Figure 4.15-15) (prepared jointly for the AMP and LUCP), was approved by the Board of Supervisors as the implementation line for two noise compatibility programs: Purchase Assurance and Acoustical Insulation. It was also utilized in the preparation and Board adoption of a land use plan. The Commission recognizes and utilizes the noise contours referred to in EIR 508 (Figure 4.15-15). Consideration of a future revision to this set of contours, referred to as the 73 ADD-Project Case - 1990 Contours, would probably occur subsequent to full implementation of Phase II of the JWA Master Plan, based on the JWA continuous noise monitoring program and the Commercial Airline Access Plan and Regulation. The Commission determined that the partial noise contour for JWA resulting from the 1992 FAA Demonstration Study (EIR 546, JWA Phase II Access Plan Amendments) should not Formatted: Centered -18- be adopted. The Commission will re-evaluate this set of contours at such time as a comprehensive noise study is conducted as part of an Airport Master Plan update. Tho Commercial Airline Access Plan. regulates flight operations at JWA. The Commission also adopted a set of noise contours referred tows the 73 ADD-Project Case - 2005 Contour (Figure 4.15- l7) from EIR 508. The Commission will utilize noise projections fi•vm either the 1990 or the 2005 Project Case contours, which ever projects the highest noise level at the given location. The JWA CNEL contours adopted by the Commission are reflected in Appendix D and reflect the 1990/2005 highest noise level contour. SAFETY ZONES, RUNWAY PROTECTION Formatted: Font: Times New ZONES-JWA Runway Protection Zones are shown in Appendix D on the map Roman, strikethrough entitled John Wayne Airport Impact Zones. Safety Zones are depicted on the exhihit titled Airport Land Use Plan & Safety Zones also in Appendix D. Sasfety Zones were adopted through the Airport Layout Plan and were approved by the FAA in March 2005. Formatted• Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS -For JWA, the Commission, by reference, has adopted Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, of the Federal Aviation Regulations as a guideline to describe the ultimate height of structures under the imaginary surfaces as defined in FAR Part 77. Structures should not exceed the elevations defined in FAR Part 77.25 unless, upon completion of an aeronautical analysis conducted by the FAA pursuant to FAR Part 77.13, the Commission finds that they will be consistent with the Policies of Section 3.2 of the AELUP. In addition to the imaginary surfaces, the Commissivn will use all of the FAR Part 77.23 standards for determining if a structure is an "obstruction." Structural height is limited to the distance between the ground elevation of the site and an elevation which the FAA has determined will not adversely affect this airport or its aeronautical operations, including interference with navigational-aids or published flight paths and procedures. If the FAA concludes that the proposed structure would be a potential hazard to air navigation, the FAA may object to its construction, examine possible revisions of the proposal to eliminate the problem, require that the object be appropriately marked and lighted as an airspace obstruction, and/or initiate changes to the aircraft flight procedures for the airport so as to account for the object. The Commission may consider the utilization of criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at this airport 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. The Commission will utilize the results of an Aeronautical Study, conducted by the FAA pursuant to FAR Part 77.13, in order to determine if a structure will have an adverse effect on the airport or on aeronautical operations. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (pages 9-6, January 2002) emphasizes that the FAA aeronautical Studies are concerned only with airspace hazards, not with hazards to people and property on the ground. An FAA determination of "no hazard" says nothing about whether proposed construction is compatible with airport activity in terms of safety and noise. Formatted: Centered - 19- PLANNING AREA -The Commission has adopted and defined as its Planning Area for John Wayne Airport all area within the 60 dB CNEL Contour (either the 73 ADD-Project Case Contour 1990 - or the 73 ADD-Project Case - 2005 Contour, whichever projects the highest noise level at the given locale), within the Runway Protection Zones, Safety Zones, and all area that lies above or penetrates the 100:1 Imaginary Surface for FAA notification, as defined in FAR Part 77.13. Outside of the 60 dB CNEL Contour, the Runway Protection Zones, or other areas of special concern as delineated by the FAA and adopted by the Commission, local agencies are required to submit only those matters to the Commission which contemplate or permit structures that would penetrate the 100:1 imaginary surface for notice to the FAA as defined in FAR Part 77.13. TWENTY-YEAR FUTURE -The Commission assumes that the Airport will continue to operate in accordance with the JWA Master Plan and subsequent settlement Agreement Amendments, and the current Airport Layout Plan through the 20-year planning horizon. The County of Formatted: Font: Times New Orange and the City of Newport Beach have approved an agreement to modify the Roman, strikethrougn 1985 Settlement Stipulation to allow an increase in operating capacity and commercial airline facilities at John Wayne Airport. The Formatted: Font: Times New ~ settlement agreement modifications were also approved by the two citizens groups Roman, Strikethrough i which are signatories to the original 1985 Settlement Stipulation. These modifications increase the regulated Average Daily Departures from 73 to 89, and the permitted number of commercial passenger loading bridges from 14 to 20. This Formatted: Font: Times New activity level will continue through at least December 31, 2015. Roman, Strikethrough . Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough Formatted: Centered - 20 - SECTION 3.0 -LAND USE POLICIES 3.1 Concept To fulfill the purpose of this plan, land use within the planning area boundaries of the AELUP must conform to noise, safety and height restriction standards. Section 3.0 sets forth both the General Policy and Specific Policies pertaining to land use. The General Policy outlines the land use standards for the planning areas. The Specific Policies clarify the General Policy. Impact areas are denoted either on maps (appended) or by reference to some standard source. 3.2 Land Use Policies 3.2.1 General Policy The General Land Use policy of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County shall be: Within the boundaries of the AELUP, any land use may be found to be Inconsistent with the AELUP which; (1) Places people so that they are affected adversely by aircraft noise, (2) Concentrates people in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, (3) Permits structures of excessive height in areas which would affect adversely the continued operation of the airport, or (4) Permits activities or facilities that would affect adversely aeronautical operations. Adverse effects of aircraft noise are defined by the "reasonable person" concept presented in the Noise Standards for California Airports, Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations (Appendix G). Adverse effects of aircraft noise include Formatted: Strikethrough single event noise disturbances to which people near airports are subjected. A concentration of people in an area susceptible to aircraft accidents, are defined as Formatted: Strikethrough a number of people situated on the ground so as to increase the potential magnitude of a major crash catastrophe (i.e., a larger number of fatalities or injuries than otherwise may occur). Adverse effect of structure height refers to a structure of such height and/or location that its existence would threaten the continued operation of the airport, or would decrease the airport's utility, such as by creating an obstacle in the flight paths or other aircraft traffic patterns employed at the airport, or by interfering with visual or electronic navigation systems. Adverse effect of activities or facilities refers to a land use that would hamper aeronautical operations within the boundaries of the AELUP of an airport by producing or causing excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust or electronic Formatted: Centered -21- interference, or by attracting birds. Any land use which is in conformance with this general policy shall be consistent with the AELUP. Any land use which is not in conformance with this general policy shall be inconsistent with the AELUP. 3.2.2 Specific Policies Some proposed land uses as normally designed and constructed may be found to be inconsistent with the AELUP by the Commission on a case-by-case basis. Other land uses may be found to be consistent with the AELUP by the Commission provided that certain conditions, mitigations, or design measures as described in the following Sections are utilized. Examples of limitations on land uses due to noise are set forth in Table 1. Formatted:.Centered -22- TABLE 1 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN LIMITATIONS ON LAND USE DUE TO NOISE (Applicable to Aircraft Noise Sources) COMMUNITY NOISE E DIVALENT LEVEL dB LAND USE CATEGORY 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential (all types): , Single and Multi-Family Residences Community Facilities: E Churches, Libraries, Schools, Preschools, Day-Care Centers, Hospitals, Nursing/Convalescent Homes, & Other noise sensitive uses Commercial: Retail, Office Industrial: NORMALLY CONSISTENT Conventional construction methods used. No special noise reduction requirements. CONDITIONALLY CONSISTENT Must use sound attenuation as required by the California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations. Residential use sound attenuation required to ensure that the interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dB. Commercial and industrial structures shall be sound attenuated to meet Noise Impact Zone " 1 "criteria (refer to Section 3.2.3). NORMALLY INCONSISTENT All residential units are inconsistent unless are sound attenuated fo ensure that the interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dB, and that all units are indoor oriented so as to preclude noise impingement on outdoor living areas. Formatted: Centered - 23 - ~ 3.2.3 Noise Impact Zone " l " - High Noise Impact (65 dB CNEL and above) Noise impact in this zone is sufficient to warrant restrictions on residential uses and to require sound attenuation measures on other uses. The ALUC does not support residential development within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour. All residential units are inconsistent in this area unless it can be shown conclusively that such units are sufficiently sound attenuated for present and projected noise exposures, which shall be the energy sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL, with an accompanying dedication of an avigation easement for noise to the airport proprietor applicable to single family residences, multi-family residences and mobile homes. Furthermore, all residential units are to be sufficiently indoor oriented so as to preclude noise impingement on outdoor living areas, as defined in Section 1.7. Noise-sensitive institutional uses such as schools, churches, hospitals, libraries, and other noise-sensitive uses may also be inconsistent in this zone. All noise-sensitive uses are inconsistent in this area unless it can be shown conclusively that such units are sufficiently sound attenuated for present and projected noise exposures, which shall be the energy sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL, and may require the dedication of an avigation easement for noise to the airport proprietor. Commercial, industrial, and recreational uses may be acceptable in this zone providing that commercial and industrial structures are sufficiently sound attenuated to allow normal work activities to be conducted. Said structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected exterior noise to meet the following criteria: Typical Use Level L (eq)*(12) Private office, church sanctuary, board room, conference room, etc. 45 dB(A) General office', reception, clerical etc. 50dB(A) Bank lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing pool, etc. 55 dB(A) Manufacturing, kitchen, warehousing, etc. 65 dB(A) * L(eq) is the equivalent sound level for a specified time period in dB(A). ** A Measured from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or other appropriate, approved time period. An enclosed office intended for use by an individual An open office intended to have more than one workstation. Formatted: Centered -24- In addition, it is recommended that all designated outdoor common or recreational areas within Noise lmpact Zone1 provide outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft. 3.2.4 Noise Impact Zone "2" Moderate Noise Impact (60 dB CNEL or Greater, less than 65 dB CNEL) Noise impact in this area is sufficient to require sound attenuation as set forth in the California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations. Single noise events in this area create serious disturbances to many inhabitants. Even though the Commission would not find residential units incompatible in this area, the Commission strongly recommends that residential units he limited or excluded from this area unless sufficiently sound attenuated. The residential use interior sound attenuation requirement shall be a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of 45 dB. In addition, it is recommended that designated outdoor common or recreational areas within Noise Impact Zone 2 provide outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft. 3.2.5 Runway Protection Zone "RPZ" The severe potential for loss of life and property due to accidents prohibits most land uses in this area. Also, the close proximity to aircraft operations limits land uses which would endanger such operations. Only airport-related uses and open space uses, including agriculture and certain types of transportation and utility uses are permitted. No buildings intended for human habitation are permitted in the RPZ. Furthermore, because of the proximity to aeronautical operations, uses in this area must not attract birds nor emit excessive glare or light, nor produce or cause steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference so as to interfere with, or endanger, aeronautical operations. ~ •~ ~ ~ . . , t ~ -t r~ r aai~t~a ~r or , a~ a'±~.or nor CtAI 1-'~ , ~rf naat~tan~ ~r~orn t~~ r+c. Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Strikethrough ___. _ Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough ( Formatted: Centered l.._--..-.-~----. _ -25- 3.2.6 Height Restriction Zone Formatted: Font: Times New Any object, which by reason of its height or location would interfere with the Roman, Strikethrough established, or planned, airport flight procedures, patterns, or navigational systems, is unacceptable to the Commission. Similarly, any proposal which would cause a diminution in the utility of an airport is unacceptable to the Commission. The standards, criteria, and procedures promulgated by the FAA for the thorough evaluation of development projects are designed to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. The application of these principles by the Commission will ensure the stability of local air transportation, as well as promote land uses that are compatible with the airport environs. However, any object which rises above the height of surrounding development, or which is located in close proximity to any of the various flight paths, must be clearly visible during hours of twilight or darkness and must not threaten, endanger, or interfere with aeronautical operations. Such objects, even if within the above height restrictions, are not acceptable to the Commission unless they are clearly marked or lighted according to FAA standards. 3.2.17 Airspace/Airport Inconsistency In reviewing projects, the Commission will find any structure, either within or outside of the planning areas, inconsistent with this AELUP if it: 1. Is determined to be a "Hazard" by the FAA; 2. Would raise the ceiling or visibility minimums at an airport for an existing or planned instrument procedure (i.e., a procedure consistent with the FAA- approved airport layout plan or a proposed procedure formally on file with the FAA); 3. Would result in a loss in airport utility, e.g. in a diminution of the established Formatted: Centered -26- operational efficiency and capacity of the airport, such as by causing the usable length of the runway (s) to be reduced; or 4. Would conflict with the VFR air space used for the airport traffic pattern or enl•oute navigation to and from the airport. 3.2.8 Avigation Easements Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Strikethrough The dedication of an avigation easement in favor of an airport proprietor is designated as a method which may be employed by airport proprietors for controlling and reducing noise problems surrounding airports, pursuant to Title 21, California Code of Regulations, Section 5037. See Appendix J for Section 5037. Therefore, in recognition of Section 5037 Formatted: Font: Times New the continuing policy of the Commission is that an avigation Roman, Strikethrough easement may be considered by the Commission if so requested by a local agency or project proponent as a factor which may render a land use, within the AELUP planning area set forth in Section 3.2.3 (Noise Impact Zone "1 "),consistent with the AELUP. However, nothing in this section shall be deemed to confer upon the Commission the legal jurisdiction or authority to require, compel or mandate the dedication of an avigation easement as a condition of consistency; and the lack of an avigation easement shall not constitute the basis for a determination by the Commission that a project is inconsistent with the AELUP. This section is applicable only to projects submitted to the Commission by local agencies after the adoption of the revisions set forth herein and only to projects within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. 3.3 Specific Policies for Consistency Determinations 3.3.1 As set forth in Public Utilities Code Sections 21676 and 21676.5 and as discussed in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, a key responsibility of an airport land use commission is to review particular types of local actions for compliance with the criteria and policies set forth in a commission's adopted compatibility plan. 3.3.2 Section 3.0 of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan sets forth the policies and criteria by which a local action can be reviewed, and a determination made of its consistency/inconsistency with the AELUP. 3.3.3 The ALUC may find a local action consistent with the AELUP; or 3.3.4 The ALUC may find a local action consistent with the AELUP with condition(s) attached if the local agency/project proponent offer such conditions. These condition(s) serve to mitigate a project which would otherwise be found inconsistent with the AELUP; or Formatted Centered -27- 3.3.5 The ALUC may find an action inconsistent with the AELUP. 3.3.6 Examples of conditions which may serve to mitigate aproject/action and thus may permit the ALUC to make a finding of consistency include the following: • Requirement for the lighting of structures per FAA Standards as set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1 J "Obstruction Marking and Lighting''. • Specification of maximum density of residential development • Specification of maximum intensity of non-residential development • Appropriate written notification, (as set forth in the "Noise Disclosure" and '`Notice of Airport in Vicinity'' definitions), for residential and other noise sensitive land uses (as described in Table 1), of aircraft noise impact, to all initial and subsequent buyers, lessees, and renters within the AELUP Noise Impact Zones set forth in Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, may on a case-by-case basis be a condition/mitigation for a land use to be found consistent with this AELUP. Inclusion of a statement on the Final Tract or Parcel Map and the Deed Disclosure Notice, for property in Noise Impact Zone "1" or Zone " 2", that the residential or other noise-sensitive land use property is subject to aircraft noise impact in substantially this form: This property is in an area in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport and as a result residents and occupants of buildings may experience inconvenience, annoyance or discomfort arising from the noise resulting from aircraft operating at the airport. State law (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) establishes the importance of public use airports for the protection of public interest of the people of the State of California. Residents and building occupants near a public airport should therefore be prepared to accept such inconvenience, annoyance or discomfort from normal aircraft operations. Any subsequent deed conveying parcels or lots shall contain a statement in substantially this form. • Presentation of evidence that commercial and industrial structures are sufficiently sound attenuated to allow normal work activities to be conducted. The structures should be attenuated to at least meet the level specified in Section 3.2.3. (Noise Impact Zone "1 "). • If offered by a local agency or project proponent, dedication of an avigation easement in favor of an airport proprietor for residential and other noise- sensitive uses as described in Table 1 under "Community Facilities" of this AELUP. Sample avigation easements are included in Appendix I. -28- Deleted: A Deleted: s Deleted: is Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Centered The dedication of an avigation easement in favor of an airport proprietor is designated as a method which may be employed by airport proprietors for controlling and reducing noise problems surrounding airports, pursuant to Title 21, California Code of Regulations, Section 5037. Application of a "Notice of Airport in Vicinity" prior to January 1, 2004. The Commission may elect to mitigate a residential action/project under the "airport influence area" as defined by Subdivision (b) of Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code, by including a condition based on the language added to Section l 1010 of the Business and Professions Code prior to the operative date (January 1, 2004) of this section by the inclusion of the following language on the Final Tract or Parcel Map and the Deed Disclosure Notice for residential property. NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. • Other condition(s) as determined by the Commission which would mitigate an action/project. In order to apply the preceding specific policies in the most diligent manner, the Commission will consider all relevant data pertaining to the various airports within Orange County and the areas surrounding them. The Commission will consider current information, as it becomes available, whenever germane to the Commission's deliberations. The integration of current and reliable information into this plan will be an ongoing goal of the Commission. Formatted: Centered -29- SECTION 4.0 -IMPLEMENTATION 4.1 Statutes The Public Utilities Code fc~r the State of California. Sections ? 1670 through 21679.5 governs the activities and responsibilities of the Airport Land Use Commission. A copy of these Sections can he found in Appendix A of this document. Further discussion of these responsihilities can be found below. Generally, the Commission is required to make recommendatiuns directly to the California Department ol~ Transportation/Aeronautics Division regarding the required State permit for new airports and heliports/helistops. The Commission also makes findings regarding consistency of proposed land use plans/ regulations/projects with this AELUP and forwards those findings to the appropriate local jurisdictions for their consideration. 4.2 General Plans and Specific Plans (Zoning) Each local agency having jurisdiction over any area within the planning areas (as defined in Section 2.1.6) is required to submit its general or specific plans (including conventional zoning and Planned Communities) for that area to the Commission for a determination in accordance with the Government Code for the State of California, Section 65302.3 and Public Utilities Code Section 21676. The submittals should highlight those areas which address the AELUP noise impact, safety compatibility, and height Formatted: Font: Times New restriction zones. The only requirement is that the submittals illustrate how local agencies Roman, Strikethrough will incorporate the performance standards outlined in this AELUP into their planning, zoning, and development processes. All agencies are encouraged to file their submittals at the earliest practical time. The agencies are encouraged further to include a statement or summary of those issues which are believed to be consistent, as well as inconsistent, with the standards of this AELUP. 4.3 Amendments to General Plans and Specific Plans (Zoning) Within the AELUP planning areas (as defined in Section 2.1.6), any amendment to a General Plan or Specific Plan (including conventional zoning and Planned Communities) must be submitted to the Commission for a determination prior to its adoption by the local agency. The submittal should be in the same manner as with Section 4.2 above. 4.4 Zoning Ordinances and Building Regulations Within the AELUP planning areas (as defined in Section 2.1.6), any proposed changes to a zoning ordinance or building regulation must be submitted to the Commission for a determination prior to its adoption by the local agency. The submittal should be in the same manner as with Section 4.2 above. Deleted: - 31 - 4.5 Airport Master Plans Each public agency owning an airport within Orange County must submit any change to its Airport Master Plan to the Commission for a determination prior to its adoption pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. 4.6 Other Submittals A project other than those described above, including but not limited to use permits and site plans, may be submitted voluntarily to the Commission for a recommendation prior to its adoption. See Section 4.11 for exception to "voluntary" submittal of projects such as use permits and site plans. The submittal should be in the same manner as with Section 4.2 above. 4.7 Submittal Requirements To file a project for a consistency determination with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), a letter from the local jurisdiction (city, county or special district) requesting the ALUC to review the project for consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and attachments as specified below are required. 1. Proic:c;t submittals should be sent to: Airport Land Use Commission Attn: Executive Officer 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa. CA 92626 2. Description of Project: General Plan Amendment (GPA); Specific Plan Amendment (or other zoning amendment); Zoning Ordinance; Building Regulation; Conditional Use Permit (CUP); etc. 3. Location of Project: Area Map; Site Plan; street address, etc. 4. Existing and proposed Genera( Plan and zoning designations. 5. Existing and proposed uses on the site and adjacent pI-operties (descriptive text and maps from an environmental document may be submitted to respond to this item). 6. Approval Schedule: Planning Commission, City Council or Board of Supervisors. 7. Is the project within the 60 CNEL Contour of the affected airport? Within the 65 CNEL Contour? What noise mitigation measures will be required to achieve interior standards? • ~ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering f ~ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering • Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: Deleted: - 32 - Formatted: Centered 8. Is the project within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of the affected airport? Formatted: Strikethrough 9. Is the project within the Height Restriction Zone (FAR Part 77 Notification Area) of the affected airport'? Has the project sponsor filed a 7460-1 Notice with the FAA'? (Provide a copy of the FAA Determination to ALUC staff. If a 7460-1 Determination is necessary, the ALUC must have this as part of the submittal hefore the project can be accepted for filing.) 10. Applicable sections of CEQA documentation. 11. Latitude and longetude (accurate to within the nearest hundredth of a second if known . 12. Height of each of the proposed structures above ground level. 13. Elevation of the project site using North American Vertical Datum1988 (NAVD88) or National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). 14. Local agency building height restrictions for the project area (Zoning Requirements). 15. Building heights of surrounding structures within 1000' radius of the proposed Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5" project area. PLEASE NOTE: A heliport (airport) referral check list is in the AELUP for Heliports. • Formatted: Tabs: 0.54", Left + Not 4.8 Submittal Deadlines at 0.5" + 1" + 1.38" + 5.75" + The Commission requests that project referrals be submitted and agendized by the ALUC staff between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. The ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month so submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing. • Formatted: Strikethrough 4.9 Acceptance of Submittal Matters referred to the Commission for review shall be deemed accepted upon the date when all materials and information necessary for processing a project have been confirmed as received by the Commission staff. Staff will inform the local jurisdiction, in writing within five working days after receipt of an item for consideration (with copy to applicant), whether more information as specified in Section 4.7 is necessary or if the item will then be deemed Formatted: Strikethrough accepted and scheduled for formal review by the Commission (See Appendix H -Referral Deleted: - 3? -~ Formatted: Centered Confirmation Letter). Necessary information as specified in Section 4.7 must include final plans, acc.~ustical reports or FAA Aeronautical Studies when deemed necessary for Commission review by the Commission staff. This procedure does not apply to screen checks or Draft Environmental Impact Report responses which staff will respond to within the specified review period. If the local jurisdiction is not contacted by Commission staff by the sixth husiness day, they should contact the Commission office to verity receipt of the original referral packa~~e. Upon receipt of a complete referral for Airport Land Use Commission review and consideration. the Commission Secretary shall schedule and agendire said referral for the next available Airport Land Use Commission meeting. 4.10 Who May File The implementation of this AELUP shall result generally from the interaction between the Commission and local agencies. Only local agencies may submit General and Specific Plans, Airpol;•t Master Plans, and amendments thereto. 4.11. Commission Finding of Inconsistency When the Commission determines that a submittal is inconsistent with the AELUP, the Commission shall promptly notify the affected local agency. The local agency may modify the submitted project so as to be consistent with the AELUP, and resubmit the project to the Commission for a determination of consistency; or the local agency may instead choose to overrule the Commission by following the procedure established in PUC Sections 21676 and 21676.5 (see Appendix A). This procedure requires the local agency to: hold a public hearing on the matter by its governing body (Board of Supervisors, City Council); make specific findings that the proposed overruling is consistent with the purposes stated in PUC Section 21670 (see Appendix A); and overrule the Commission by at least atwo-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors or City Council. When such an overruling occurs, the PUC provides in Section 21678 (see Appendix A) that if the local agency does not operate the public airport in question, then the operator of that affected public airport shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by, or resulting directly or indirectly from, the local agency's decision to overrule the Commission's determination of inconsistency. 4.12 Inconsistent Local Agency If the Commission determines that a City or the County is an Inconsistent Local Agency and the local jurisdiction does not overrule that determination, the Commission may require that the jurisdiction submit all land use actions to the Commission for review and determination. 4.13 Continuous Monitoring It shall be the ongoing function of the Commission and its staff to monitor all development within the planning areas to ensure that the purposes of this AELUP are fulfilled. Deleted: I A Formatted: Strikethrough Deleted: - 32 - Formatted: Centered 4.14 Periodic Review Deleted: The Commission shall review the substance and adequacy of this AELUP Formatted: Font: Times New at a minimum of once every five years. Roman, Strikethrough J 4.15 AELUP Amendments Deleted: Upon approving any amendment to this AELUP, the Commission will promptly inform all affected agLncies of the action and the requirement for local agency action per Government Code Section 65302.3 as specified below: 65302.3 (a) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan prepared pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450), shall be consistent with the plan adopted or amended pursuant to Section 21675 of the Puhlic Utilities Code. (b) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan, shall be amended, as necessary, within 180 days of any amendment to the plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code. (c) If the legislative body does not concur with any provision of the plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, it may satisfy the provisions of this section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. Deleted: - 32 - Formatted: Centered ATTACHMENT C Draft Comment Letter March 5, 2008 Ms. Kari Rigoni Executive Officer Airport Land Use Commission 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF 2008 PROPOSED JWA AELUP AMENDMENTS Dear Ms. Rigoni: Thank you again for- the opportunity to review the proposed amendments to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). Thank you also for meeting with City staff on November 19, 2007, and January 28, 2008, to discuss the proposed amendments. As stated in our letter dated December 10, 2007, the Tustin- City Council is particularly concerned about any proposed amendments pertaining to height limitations, avigation easements, deed disclosures, signage, and proximity disclosures. ~lowever, these types of amendments were not included in the second draft released on February 22, 2008. The Council understands the importance of preserving navigable airspace and the consequences that may result from obstructions which penetrate and/or interfere with this airspace. Therefore, the Council would not support any amendment to the AELUP or any policy that would result in a further diversion of flight patterns over Tustin. The City of Tustin has identified one remaining concern regarding the proposed amendments: • It is unclear to the City of Tustin whether the Planning Area for John Wayne Airport includes the ground level of the entire area depicted within the FAR Part 77 John Wayne Airport Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces (Appendix D) or only the airspace that penetrates the imaginary surface within the depicted area. This issue is of significant importance to Tustin and should be further clarified in the AELUP. It is our understanding, that the proposed amendments are anticipated to be considered by the ALUC Board on March 20, 2008. We request a copy of the staff report prepared Ms. Kari Rigoni March 5, 2008 Page 2 for the proposed amendments and the opportunity to review any additional refinements that may be drafted prior to the Board's consideration of the amendments. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Elizabeth Binsack at (714) 573-3031. Sincerely, Jerry Amante Mayor cc: William A. Huston Elizabeth Binsack Dana Ogdon Scott Reekstin SR/Airport/AELUP Amendments Comment Letter 2008.doc