MAYOR CITY MANAGER
ValerieAmezcua AlvaroNuñez
MAYORPROTEM CITYATTORNEY
BenjaminVazquez SoniaR. Carvalho
COUNCILMEMBERS CITYCLERK
PhilBacerra JenniferL. Hall
JohnathanRyanHernandez
JessieLopez
DavidPenaloza
ThaiViet Phan
CITYOFSANTAANA
PLANNINGANDBUILDINGAGENCY
www.santa-ana.org
JulyXX, 2025
Also sentvia emailto: [email protected]
Julie Fitch
OrangeCountyAirport LandUseCommission
3160Airway Avenue
RE: NOTICEOF INTENT TO OVERRULETHE DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY FOR THE VILLAGE SANTA ANA SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSEDAT 1561 WEST
SUNFLOWERAVENUE
Thepurposeof this letteris to inform you of theCity of SantaAna’s intentionto recommendthat the SantaAna City Council adoptthe attachedfindings to overruletheJune , 2025, Airport Land UseCommission’s (“ALUC”) determinationof inconsistencyfor the Village Santa Ana SpecificPlan (“Project”) with theAirport EnvironsLand UsePlan (“AELUP”) for JohnWayne Airport (“JWA”).
On July 15, 2025, theSantaAna City Council metand (1) approvedissuinga Noticeof Intentto Overruleand (2) determinedto givenoticeto theALUC of its decisionto overrule as requiredby CaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCode (“PUC”
to overruleandsubmitstheattacheddraft bit A) for review. PUC theCaliforniaDepartmentof Transportation (Caltrans), AeronauticsDivision, andALUC at least 45 daysprior to thefinal decisionto overrule. After notification, CaltransandALUC have 30 days from thereceiptof noticeto provideadvisorycommentsto theCity. this time, theproposedProjecthasnot beenscheduledfor public hearingbeforetheSanta Ana City Council.
SANTAANACITYCOUNCIL
ValerieAmezcua Benjamin VazquezThai Viet Phan JessieLopez Phil Bacerra Johnathan Ryan HernandezDavid Penaloza Mayor Mayor ProTem - Ward2 Ward1 Ward3 Ward4 Ward5 Ward6 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Noticeof Intentto Overrule & DraftFindings –TheVillageSantaAna SpecificPlan (1561W.
SunflowerAvenue)
JulyXX, 2025
Page2 of 2
Shouldyou haveanyquestionsregardingthis noticeand/or on theproposedProject, pleasefeel free to - or by emailat [email protected].
youfor yourpromptattentiononthismatter.
Sincerely,
JerryC. Guevara, AICP
SeniorPlanner
A: DraftFindingsto OverruleALUC’s Determination
ExhibitA: DraftALUCOverruleFindings – TheVillageSantaAna SpecificPlan (1561 W.
SunflowerAvenue)
Page1 of 10
A. The City of SantaAna is requiredto provide findingssupportingthe overruleof the OrangeCounty Airport Land UseCommission (“ALUC”) determination as requiredin theCaliforniaPublicUtilities Code (“PUC”) Section 21676(b). Based on the following Findingsof Fact andthe associatedsubstantialevidencein the publicrecord, theproposedactionby theCity on The Village SantaAna Specific Plan Project (“Project”) at the northeastcorner of West Sunflower Avenue and Bear Street, transected by South Plaza Drive ( 1561 W. Sunflower Avenue Project Street")) and related zoning change (amendmentapplication) are consistent with the purposesof the State Aeronautics Act as stated in PUC Section21670.
B. The proposed Project providesfor the orderly developmentof John Wayne Airport (“JWA”), and its surrounding areaand promotes the overall goals and objectives of the State noise standards by avoiding new noise and safety problems, and protecting the public health, safety and welfare through the adoptionof landusemeasuresthat minimizethe public’s exposureto excessive noiseandsafetyhazardsto the extent that this area is not already devoted to incompatible uses. This Project would not add any new residential or commercialnoiseimpactsto the JWA 65 dBA CommunityNoiseEquivalentLevel CNEL”) noisearea.
C. It is in the public interestto provide for the orderly developmentof eachpublic useairport in the State of California (“State”) and the area surrounding these airports so asto promote the overall goalsand objectivesof the State airport noise standardsadoptedpursuantto PUC Section21669 andto prevent the creationof new noiseandsafetyproblems.
D. To provide for the orderly developmentof JWA and the areasurrounding the airport, theALUC adoptedthe2008Airport EnvironsLandUsePlan (“AELUP”) on April 17, 2008. The AELUP guidesdevelopmentproposalsto provide for orderly developmentof the airport andthe areasurroundingthe airport through implementationof thestandardsin Section2.1 (aircraftnoise, safetycompatibility zones, buildingheightrestrictions).
E. The ALUC is required to usethe State Airport Land UsePlanning Handbook Handbook") that wasupdatedby the California Departmentof Transportation, Divisionof Aeronautics (“Caltrans”) in 2011. TheAELUP for JWA has not been updatedto incorporatethe Handbooknor hasit been updatedwith information about the operation and environmentaleffects of JWA asreflected in its most recentFinalEnvironmentalImpactReport (“EIR”) certified by the OrangeCounty Board of Supervisorson June25, 2019 for the GeneralAviation Improvement Program (“GAIP”).
ExhibitA: DraftALUCOverruleFindings – TheVillageSantaAna SpecificPlan (1561 W.
SunflowerAvenue)
Page2 of 10
F. As the Project proposesa zone changeand adoption of a Specific Plan, and pursuantto PUC Section 21676,the City of SantaAna referredthe proposed Projectto theALUC for review.
G. The ALUC has adopted FAR Part 77 as the criteria for determining height restrictionsin OrangeCounty. FAR Part 77 requiresnotification to the Federal AviationAdministration (“FAA”) for anyproject that would bemorethan200 feet in height aboveground level or within the imaginary surfaceof a 100:1 slope extendingoutward for 20,000 feet from the nearestrunway. The ProjectSite is locatedwithin the 206-foot-high imaginarysurfaceareafor JWA, thus requiring FAA notification. The proposedmixed-usebuildingsthat area part of the Project would be a maximumof 25 storieshigh, with the tallest point on the buildings being315feetabovetheexistinggroundlevel.
H. On June19, 2025, theCity of SantaAna presentedtheProjectto theALUC for a determinationof consistencywith theJWAAELUP. The ALUCstaffreportfor that hearing found that the proposedProject is consistentwith AELUP issues of aircraft noise, flight tracks andsafety, andheliports. The staff report notedthat with regardto AELUP issuesof heightrestrictions, theProjectis inconsistentper Section2.1.3 of theAELUP, whichstatesthat “a Determinationof No Hazardto Air Navigationdoesnot automaticallyequateto a Consistencydeterminationby the ALUC andthat the Commissionmayfind a project Inconsistentbasedon an Obstructiondetermination”, andSection3.2.1 of the AELUP, which statesthat within the boundaries of the AELUP, any land use may be found to be inconsistentwith the AELUP which… permitsstructuresof excessiveheight in areaswhich would affect adverselythe continued operation of the airport; or permitactivitiesor facilitiesthat would affectadverselyaeronauticaloperations.” The proposedProject would allow buildings up to 25 storiesand/or 315 feet, whichwould penetratetheFAR Part77 HorizontalObstructionImaginarySurface for JWA.
I. On June19, 2025, the ALUC held a public hearing and, by unanimousvote, adopteda resolutionfindingtheProjectinconsistentwith theAELUP for thestated reasonssetforth in thestaff report.
J. The City of SantaAna hasthe generalpolicepower to control landusewithin its territorialjurisdiction (Cal. Const., art. XI 11, § 7). This constitutionalauthority is acknowledgedin Statelaw (PUC §§ 21676, 21676.5) and the ALUC process allowingfor overruleof anALUC findingof inconsistency.
K. Pursuantto PUC Section21676(b), the City mayoverrule the commissionby a two-thirds vote of the City Councilif it makesspecificfindingsthat the Projectis consistentwith thepurposesof theStateAeronauticsAct.
ExhibitA: DraftALUCOverruleFindings – TheVillageSantaAna SpecificPlan (1561 W.
SunflowerAvenue)
Page3 of 10
L. TheCity findsthattheProjectis consistentwith theAELUP andwith thepurposes of the State Aeronautics Act basedon the following Findings of Fact and substantialevidence:
a. The ALUC lacksevidenceof the Project’s inconsistencywith the AELUP.
The proposed zone changeunder the Project allows establishmentof a specific plan, which containspermissiveusesand developmentstandards, but does not specify exact locations and heights of each implementing developmentthat fallswithin thescopeof thespecificplan. Moreover, during the June19, 2025 ALUC hearingon the Project, ALUC staff incorrectly describedthe City of SantaAna’s GeneralPlanUpdateasbelongingto the City of CostaMesa, andthe project site was incorrectly describedasbeing at the northwestcorner of PlazaDrive andSunflower Avenue. During the ALUC hearing, ALUC Commissionersand ALUC staff referred to dated information about the effect of existing and planned tall buildings in the Airport vicinity on instrument procedures and aircraft on instrument approachesand departures to and from the airport. In 2009, the FAA implementedstate-of-the-art, precision Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) proceduresusingArea Navigation (RNAV) technologyto improveaccessto the airport in poor weatherconditions. Theseproceduresconsiderexisting tall buildingsin thevicinity of the airport alongwith high terrainnorth of the airport for theentirefleet of aircraftthat usethe airport. Further, the FAA’s studyof theProjectincludeda reviewof the proposed25-story buildings, in contextwith both existingandproposedtall buildings, existingandproposed approachanddepartureprocedures, and the entire fleet of aircraft making useof the airport. The FAA, basedon its aeronautical study and public circularization to airlines serving the airport, and all aeronautical users includingairport operationsstaff, issuedDeterminationsof No Hazardto Air Navigation on September 6, 2024. Despite the FAA’ s study, its circularizationandits determinationof no hazard, theALUC foundtheproject inconsistent basedon an “obstruction” determination. No evidenceof a substantialaeronauticalimpactof anobstructionwasprovidedby theALUC. b. DuringtheJune19, 2025ALUC hearingon theProject, Citystaff and the Projectapplicantprovidedsupplementalinformationaboutthe natureof a specificplan, how implementingprojectswill bereviewed, informationon existing high-rises in the vicinity, FAA notification requirements for buildingsexceeding200 feet in height, andthat the FinalSupplemental EnvironmentalImpactReport (“SEIR”) for the Project would containa mitigationmeasurerequiring “Noticeof Airport in Vicinity,” to beincluded in all lease/rental agreementsand post outdoor signageinforming the public of the presenceof operating aircraft, which demonstratesfurther compliance with the AELUP and to minimize potential future noise complaints. Despitethis information, the ALUC voted to find the Project inconsistentpersection2.1.3 and3.2.1 of theAELUP.
ExhibitA: DraftALUCOverruleFindings – TheVillageSantaAna SpecificPlan (1561 W.
SunflowerAvenue)
Page4 of 10
c. Noise. The residential and commercial land usesunder the proposed Projectareconsistentwith theaircraftnoisestandardsof theAELUP. i. The Project is located outside of the JWA 60 to 65 dBA CNEL aircraft noisecontours. Aircraft noiseanalysiswascompletedin the Project’s SEIR ( State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) and presentedat the ALUC hearing. The JWA GAIP EIR alsocontains noiseanalysisdemonstratingthat the Project is outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. This noise analysisis basedon one year’s worth of aircraft operations in all runway operating configurationsfor both existingaircraft fleet mixesandfuture fleet forecasts. This analysisincludesthe time of day of all operations and includes noise penaltiesfor evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) aircraft operationsof five andten decibels per operation. Residential land usesare normally consistent in areas impacted by aircraft noise up to 60 dBA CNEL and
commerciallandusesup to 65 dBA CNEL asshownin theAELUP
Table 1. Thesearethe samenoisestandardsusedby the FAA and theStateof Californiato identifycompatiblelandusesnearairports. ii. TheProjectis locatedoutsideof theJWA single-eventaircraft noise contours. The detailedaircraft noiseanalysiscompletedaspart of the JWAGAIPEIRincludedanalysisof singleeventaircraft noise.
This analysisincluded singleeventnoisecontours for the noisiest aircraft makingregularuseof JWA.
iii. The Projectincludesa requiredmeasurenotifying future residents.
The conditions of approval include notification measures, which includesa measurerequiring “Notice of Airport in Vicinity,” to be includedin all lease/rentalagreementsandto post outdoor signage informing the public of the presenceof operating aircraft, which demonstratesfurther compliancewith the AELUP and efforts to minimizepotentialfuturenoisecomplaints.
iv. The GeneralPlanUpdate (“GPU”) in 2022 addressesnoise, safety, hazards, andother relatedimpactsfrom developmentin the vicinity of the Airport. Projectsapprovedunderthe GPU would berequired to comply with FAA airspaceprotection regulations using the AELUP consistencydeterminationprocess.
v. The AELUP establishesaircraft noiseexposureexterior noiselevel compatibilitythresholdsfor new developmentby landusecategory.
According to the exterior noisethresholdsoutlined in the AELUP, multi-family residential development is considered normally consistentwith exterior noise levels of lessthan 60 dBA CNEL, conditionally consistentwith exterior noiselevelsbetween60 and 65 dBA CNEL andnormally inconsistentwith exterior noiselevel ExhibitA: DraftALUCOverruleFindings – TheVillageSantaAna SpecificPlan (1561 W.
SunflowerAvenue)
Page5 of 10
above65 Dba CNEL. For commercialretail landuse, exterior noise levelsareconsiderednormallyconsistentwith exterior noiselevels of lessthan65 dBA CNEL andconditionallyconsistentwith exterior noiselevelabove65 dBA CNEL. TheProjectsiteis locatedoutside of both theairport’s plannedandactual60 CNEL contoursof JWA.
Therefore, accordingto theAELUP, theProject’s residential, open space, andcommercialretail landusesarenormallyconsistentwith JWA aircraft noise exposure exterior noise level compatibility standards. Also, theairport relatednoiseat theProjectsitedoesnot exceed the City’s municipal code permissible noise levels.
Additionally, the County’s General Aviation Noise Ordinance prohibitscommercialaircraftdeparturesbetweenthehoursof 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and arrivals betweenthe hours of 11:00 p.m. and7:00 a.m. Theserestrictionssubstantiallylimit theaircraft noise duringthe noisesensitivenighttimehoursfor residentialuse. d. Safety. The residential and commercial land usesunder the proposed projectareconsistentwith thesafetystandardsof theAELUP. TheProject is not in anyof theAELUP safetyzones. The Project is locatedoutsideof the runwayprotectionzone (“RPZ”). TheProjectis locatedmorethan0.40 miles from the outer edge of AELUP Zone 6, TrafficPattern Zone as depictedin Appendix D. Further, AELUP Appendix D statesthe “Basic CompatibilityQualities” of Zone6 as “Allow residentialuses” and “Allow mostnonresidentialuses.”
i. Projectis not in theJWA RPZ. TheProjectis locatedapproximately
1.5 milesfrom theouter edgeof thenearestJWA RPZ.
ii. The FAA’s Determinationsof No Hazardto Air Navigationfor the Mixed-Use development structures are the only source of authoritative, aviationsafetyfindingsregardingtheproject. TheFAA has conductedan aeronautical study (49 U.S.C. §44718 and 14 CFRPart77) of theindividualstructureswithin theSpecificPlanand has issuedits Determinationsof No Hazardon September6, 2024. iii. In thiscaseit is importantto first establishwhatentityhasauthority over the useof airspaceover the project site. “The United States Government hasexclusivesovereignty of airspaceof the United States” (49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(1)).
iv. In order to usethis airspace, the FAA Administrator is responsible for: (1) Plansandpolicy for the safeuseof the navigableairspace 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1); and (2) “\[R\]egulationson the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safealtitudes) for navigating, protecting and identifying aircraft; protecting individuals and propertyon theground; usingthenavigableairspaceefficiently; and preventingcollision betweenaircraft, betweenaircraft andland or ExhibitA: DraftALUCOverruleFindings – TheVillageSantaAna SpecificPlan (1561 W.
SunflowerAvenue)
Page6 of 10
watervehicle, andbetweenaircraftandairborneobjects” (49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(2)).
v. The FAA’s aeronautical studies for project structures are the definitive standardfor assessingcompliancewith federalaviation safety laws and regulations (49 U.S.C. § 77.1(c)). This federal authorityis recognizedin Statelaw (Cal. PUC §21240).
vi. The City of SantaAna hasthe local police powersto control land useon the site (Cal. Const., art. XI 11, § 7). This constitutional authorityis acknowledgedin State law (PUC §21670 and
21676) and the ALUC process (AELUP § 4.11) allowing for overruleof anALUC findingof inconsistency.
vii. Theother entitiesthat haveprocessedor commentedon this project have aviation safety duties and responsibilities related to this matter. Eachof theseentitiesrelieson or ultimately defersto the FAA’sauthoritativeaviationsafetyroleinairspacedeterminations. viii. The AELUP for JWA, Section2.1.3 Building Height Restrictions states, “In adopting criteria for building height restrictions in the vicinitiesof airports, theCommissionconsideredonly one standard andthat wasFederalAviation RegulationsPart77 (\[14 CFR\] Part 77) entitled, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. " These regulationsare the only definitive standard available \[emphasis added\] andthestandardmostgenerallyused.”
ix. Section2.1.3 also recognizesFAAaeronauticalstudiesbeyond14 CFRPart77 surfacesasthestandardfor review, “In additionto the imaginarysurfaces,’ the Commissionwill useall of the FAR Part
77.23 standardsalongwith the resultsof FAA aeronauticalstudies, emphasis added\] or other studies deemed necessaryby the Commission, in orderto determineif a structureis an ‘obstruction.’” This section goes on to state: The Commission considers and recognizesthe FAA asthe single "Authority" for analyzingproject impact on airport or aeronauticaloperations, or navigational-aid siting, includinginterferencewith navigational- aids or published flight pathsand procedures. The Commissionalso considersthe FAA asthe "Authority" for reportingthe resultsof suchstudiesand project analyses. The Commissionwill not considerthe findings of reports or studiesconductedby partiesother thanthe FAA unless the FAA certifiesandadoptssuchfindingsastrue andcorrect. x. Section2.1.3 addsreferenceto FAA Advisory Circular 150/5190- 4A, A Model ZoningOrdinanceto Limit Heightof ObjectsAround Airports for Commission Review. This FAA Advisory Circular providesspecificguidancefor establishingzoningregulationsalong ExhibitA: DraftALUCOverruleFindings – TheVillageSantaAna SpecificPlan (1561 W.
SunflowerAvenue)
Page7 of 10
with specific guidance on a “variance” process for potential obstructions. At Section3.b., “TheFederalAviation Administration FAA) conductsaeronauticalstudieson obstructionswhichexamine their effect on such factors as: aircraft operational capabilities; electronic and procedural requirements; and, airport hazard standards. If an aeronautical study shows that an obstruction, when evaluated against these factors, has no substantial adverse effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace, then the obstruction is considered not to be a hazard to air navigation \[emphasisadded\].”
xi. CaltransDivisionof Aeronautics – Caltranspublishesthe California Airport Land UsePlanningHandbook (“Handbook”) in accordance with StateLaw with thepurposeto, “provideinformationto ALUCs, their staffs, airport proprietors, cities, counties, consultants, andthe public; to identify the requirementsand proceduresfor preparing effectivecompatibilityplanningdocuments; and define exemptions where applicable (Caltrans, 2011).” The Handbook provides specific guidancefor assessingpotential airspaceobstructions in Section4.5 AirspaceProtection.
xii. JWA – The FAA requiresairport sponsorslike OrangeCounty to acceptspecificgrantassuranceswhentheyacceptfederalfunding.
HazardRemovalandMitigation andCompatibleLand Usearetwo
of theseassurances (49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(9) and (10)). For hazard removal, theAirport relieson theFAA’s aeronauticalstudyto meet its requirement. For compatible land use, the Airport relies on coordination with the surrounding cities and the ALUC. The followingarethe specificassurances:
xiii. HazardRemovalandMitigation. It will take appropriateaction to assure that such terminal airspace as is required to protect instrument and visual operations to the airport ( including establishedminimumflight altitudes) will be adequatelyclearedand protectedby removing, lowering, relocating, marking, or lighting or otherwisemitigating existingairport hazardsandby preventingthe establishmentor creationof future airport hazards.
The proposedProjectwould not resultin hazardsrelated
to excessiveglare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference. Exterior lighting fixtures andsecuritylighting would beinstalledin accordancewith the City’s Municipal Code Division 3, Building Security Regulations, which
includes specifications for shielding and intensity of
securitylighting. In addition, the proposedProject would not use highly reflective surfaces, and does not include large areas of glass on the buildings. Therefore, the
ExhibitA: DraftALUCOverruleFindings – TheVillageSantaAna SpecificPlan (1561 W.
SunflowerAvenue)
Page8 of 10
proposedProject would not generatesubstantialsources
of glare.
Operationof the proposedresidentialandcommercialuses
would not generatesubstantialquantitiesof steam, smoke, or dust emissions. Dust emissions are regulated by
Southern California Air Quality Management District
SCAQMD”) requirements and construction related air
quality emissionsthat could include steam, smoke, and
dust emissions would be less than significant with
implementationof thestandardSCAQMD Rules.
The proposed Project would include the use of typical
electronics, such as computers, televisions, and other
electronics with wireless capability. These types of
electronics are currently being usedby the existing land useson the site, and other usesin the vicinity of the site.
Thenewresidentialandcommercialuseson the site would
use similar technology that does not cause electronic
interferencethat could affectaircraft. Thus, impactsrelated to electronicinterferencewith operationsof JWA wouldnot occur.
xiv. CompatibleLand Use. It will take appropriateaction, to the extent reasonable, includingtheadoptionof zoninglaws, to restricttheuse of land adjacentto or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activitiesandpurposescompatiblewith normalairport operations, includinglandingandtakeoffof aircraft. In addition, if theProjectis for noisecompatibilityprogramimplementation, it will not causeor permitanychangein landuse, within its jurisdiction, that will reduce its compatibility, withrespectto theairport, of thenoisecompatibility programmeasuresuponwhich Federalfundshavebeenexpended.
e. Height. The residentialand commercialland usesunder the proposed Project are consistent with the height standardsof the AELUP. The allowableheightof structuressurroundinganairport is describedin FAR Part 77 asthe allowableheightat which safemovementof aircraft occurs.
The regulation requires that notice be given to the FAA if there is a proposalto construct a structure that would exceeda 100:1 slopeof an imaginary surfaceextending outward for 20,000 feet from the nearest runwayat JWA. Beyondthe100:1 imaginarysurface, FAR Part77 requires notificationto FAA for anyprojectthat will bemorethan200feetin height abovethe groundlevel.
i. Theproposedbuildingsassociatedwith theSpecificPlanwould not exceedthe sloping, three-dimensional100:1 (one percentsloping ExhibitA: DraftALUCOverruleFindings – TheVillageSantaAna SpecificPlan (1561 W.
SunflowerAvenue)
Page9 of 10
surfacefrom the nearestrunway over 3,200 feet in actual length) FAA notificationsurfaceto requiretheFilingof FAA Form7460-1. ii. Thebuildingsexceeding200 feet in heightin the SpecificPlanarea will not exceedthe sloping, three-dimensional50:1 FAA precision instrumentApproachSurfaceto JWA Runway20R.
iii. Each future site-specific implementingdevelopment under the Project will be required to be submitted through the City’s developmentreview process, at which point if a specificbuildingis proposedwithin theFAA Notification Areathat exceeds200feetin height, FAA notificationcompliancewould be requiredthrough the developmentreviewprocess.
iv. In additionto requiringFAA notificationfor anybuildingsexceeding 200 feet in heightwithin the Projectarea, AELUP andFAR Part77 requirean FAA aeronauticalstudy to be conductedto ensurethat the proposed structures would not constitute a hazard to air navigation.
f. Overflight. “Closeto theJWA approachcenterline” asidentifiedby the ALUC is neitheranFAA nor anAELUP standard.
i. TheFAA is theonly authoritativesourceof aviationsafetydataand the FAA doesnot havea “closeto the JWA approachcenterline” standard.
ii. TheAELUP clearlyidentifiesits airport landuseplanningstandards around aircraft noise, safety, and height. Objective measuresof thesestandardsare clearly identified in AELUP Section 2.1. The SpecificPlanis draftedto beconsistentwith eachof theseobjective standards.
iii. Two-dimensionalflight tracks do nothing to inform the impact of overflights. TheALUC provided limitedarrivalanddepartureflight tracksin its ALUC staffreport.
iv. Aircraft noisecontoursusedto objectively measurenoise impact alreadyassumeflight tracks andactualoperating conditions for a full yearincludingfutureoperations. Limited informationpresented within the staff report packetdatedJune19, 2025 of arrivalflight tracks and limited informationon departure flight tracks are not representative of a general condition and are not substantive evidence.
v. The project is located outside of the JWA single event noise exposure areas documented in the JWA General Aviation
ExhibitA: DraftALUCOverruleFindings – TheVillageSantaAna SpecificPlan (1561 W.
SunflowerAvenue)
Page10 of 10
ImprovementProgramEIR certified on June25, 2019.
g. Heliports. Heliportsarenot a partof the Project.
h. Zone Change. The proposed zone change (amendmentapplication) is consistent with the objective AELUP aircraft noise, safety and height standardsand is thereforeconsistentwith the larger planningrole of the ALUC. “Closeto theJWA approachcenterline” is not anFAA or anALUC standard.
i. There is no substantiationthat overflights of new residentswould be disturbedor annoyed. The Project is locatedoutsideof the 60 dBA CNEL noisecontour.As such, the Project would not addany new residentialor commercialnoiseimpactsto the JWA 65 dBA CNEL noisearea.
ii. Flight tracks limited informationwas provided in the ALUC staff report. f Theseflight tracksarenot uniqueand are fully accounted for in the one year of overflights usedto measureCNEL noise impactsassociatedwith JWA.
iii. Flight trackslimited informationforarrivalsand departuresare not unique and are fully accounted for in the single-event noise contoursproducedfor the JWA GAIP EIR.The Project is located outsideof thesesingle-eventnoisecontours.
iv. PerSection1.2 of theAELUP for JWA, thepurposeof theAELUP is to safeguardthe general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinityof theairport andto ensurethe continuedoperationsof the airport. The methodby which the ALUC achievesthis purposeis through the application of the objective standardscontained in Section2.1 of theAELUP. As demonstratedin theALUC staffreport and, in theseFindings, the Specific Plan and application for each implementing projectis and will be consistent with each of the standards. As a result, the ALUC hasmet their duty underSection
1.2 by ensuringthat theSpecificPlanmeetsthesestandards. v. Additionally, Section2.1.4 of theAELUP for JWA andPUCSection 21674 chargethe Commissionto coordinate at the local level to ensurecompatible land useplanning. The method by which the ALUC achieves this charge is through the application of the objectivestandardscontained in Section 2.1 of the AELUP. As demonstratedin the ALUC staff report and, in theseFindings, the Project is consistentwith eachof the standards. As a result, the ALUC hasmet their duty under Section 2.1.4 and PUC Section 21674by ensuringthat the Project meetsthesestandards.