My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
60A - BACERRAS REQUEST
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2020
>
09/15/2020
>
60A - BACERRAS REQUEST
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/10/2020 5:31:51 PM
Creation date
9/10/2020 5:29:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
60A
Date
9/15/2020
Destruction Year
2025
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
proponent filed with the FAA and received a Determination of No <br />Hazard to Air Navigation on March 5, 2020. <br />ii. The Project does not exceed the sloping, three-dimensional 50:1 <br />FAA precision instrument Approach Surface to JWA Runway 20R. <br />This fact is stated in the ALUC staff report and was repeated at <br />the ALUC hearing on the Project. Despite this fact, the Project <br />proponent filed with the FAA and received a Determination of No <br />Hazard to Air Navigation on March 5, 2020. <br />f. Overflight. "Close to the JWA approach centerline" as identified by the <br />ALUC is neither an FAA nor an AELUP standard. <br />The FAA is the only authoritative source of aviation safety data <br />and the FAA does not have a "close to the JWA approach <br />centerline" standard. The FAA's Aeronautical Study of the Project <br />and Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation issued on <br />March 5, 2020 are the only authoritative source of airspace impact <br />information as stated in the AELUP. <br />The AELUP clearly identifies its airport land use planning <br />standards around aircraft noise, safety, and height. Objective <br />measures of these standards are clearly identified in AELUP <br />Section 2.1. The Project is consistent with each of these objective <br />standards. <br />iii. Two-dimensional flight tracks and a list of unassociated aircraft do <br />nothing to inform the impact of overflights. The ALUC provided <br />one day of arrival flight tracks, one day of departure flight tracks <br />and lists of aircraft by time of day and altitude that were purported <br />to have produced these flight tracks. <br />iv. The Project proponent prepared three-dimensional models of the <br />ALUC-provided flight track information to depict actual overflight <br />proximity to a scaled model of the Project. These three- <br />dimensional models show that some residents and users of the <br />property would likely be able to see aircraft flying past the property <br />from certain locations. Aircraft noise information from the AELUP, <br />the JWA GAIP EIR and from the Project EIR demonstrate that the <br />noise impact would be less than 60 dBA CNEL and less than <br />single event noise standards identified in the JWA GAIP EIR. <br />V. Aircraft noise contours used to objectively measure noise impact <br />already assume flight tracks and actual operating conditions for a <br />full year including future operations. One day of arrival flight <br />tracks and one day of departure flight tracks are simple anecdotes <br />and not substantive evidence. <br />Resolution No. 2020-067 <br />60A-1 2 Page 9 of 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.