FULL PACKET_2005-04-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ALUC Minutes Page 4 January 15,2004 Executive Officer Golding summarized the inquiries made with FAA and ALP A since the previous meeting, but without any formal replies from either. She explained that JW A staff had pursued contact with FAA since the project's 7460 Notice had not been circulated for comments, with the appeal period consequently passing without any objections. She added that JW A staffhad succeeded in getting FAA to recheck the project's determination findings, and that both JW A and ALUC staff hope to receive circulated Notices during FAA's study process in the future, rather than after the fact from cities and project proponents. She introduced Staff Analyst Brady, who presented the Supplemental Staff Report. Mr. Brady briefly recalled the ALUC deliberations at the previous meeting and went through the subsequent research on the project, noting the correspondence sent to FAA and to ALP A, and the previous development history of the locale as found in the available ALUC files. Referring to a large air photo of the area, Mr. Brady showed the relative locations of the project site, the JW A runway complex, and other nearby areas of high-rise buildings in Costa Mesa and Irvine. He next addressed questions previously raised by Commissioners Propst and H. Beverburg, having discussed these and related questions with the FAA Regional Office staff. He related FAA's explanation that their analysis found the project to be close to their evaluation parameters, however, the building will not be a hazard but rather will be an obstruction thereby requiring proper lighting. He noted FAA's calculation that the project will be 605' outside of the flight envelope for instrument approaches to 19R along the extended runway centerline. He repeated that the FAA's phrase "critical to flight safety" refers to their requirement that the developer file a subsequent form showing the building's final specs, for the FAA to enter into their database for inclusion in future aeronautical studies, air traffic designs, and aeronautical chart editions. He added FAA's calculation that during a Runway OIL missed approach operation, under Santa Ana winds conditions when visibility would be excellent, an aircraft would pass over the general area of the project site at 600', Mr. Brady returned to the staff report, explaining that the additional information acquired did not provide staff with a basis for altering their previous conclusion and recommendation. He added that in obtaining and considering broader information, an alternative recommendation has been included to allow the ALUC to take other action as it deems appropriate based on additional information received up to, and at, today'smeeting. Mr. Brady concluded by noting the presence of the project sponsor and his consultants in the audience who may want to address the Commission. Replying to Commissioner Kranser, Mr. Brady explained the address on the ALP A website used to send the ALUC letter, although he did not know of any follow-up attempt. Replying to Commissioner H. Beverburg, Mr. Brady related the FAA's explanation that had their analysis been leading to a "determination of hazard" for the project, the FAA would have contacted the developer directly to ask that the building be lowered. He noted that the FAA would decide on a hazard determination ifthe building were 605' closer to the centerline and actually intruding into the aircraft operating airspace, with or without a cell phone tower atop the building. Replying to Commissioner Propst, Mr. Brady explained that since the FAA appears not to circulate every notice any more, the current and previous high-rise projects in Santa Ana were the first occasions of his seeing the term "critical to flight safety." Commissioner Webb stated that he has not heard any information on which to deny the project, and that he wises to move staff s first recommendation. 75C-167