FULL PACKET_2005-04-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AL U C Minutes Page 5 March 18, 2004 Replying to Commission Propst, Mr. Van Ligten surmised that the Development Agreement was not referred to the ALUC at the time since the project appeared to be consistent with the AELUP, hence no one thought there would be issues. He confirmed that the agreement is between the proponent and the City. Replying to Commissioner 0 'Malley's questions about actual elevations and the status of navaids at JW A, Mr. Franco Mola, the developer, stated the site elevation is 31' AMSL and that the height limits for navaids is whatever the FAA says, repeating that FAA has reviewed and approved the planned height and therefore, the project is consistent and the developer has that right. Commissioner O'Malley stated his understanding of the FAA's work, but he desires to know the navaid status as relates to the various height limits in the documents. He added that ALUC did not get replies to the letters sent to FAA and ALP A whose opinions should be critical to all concerned. Mr. Mola stated that any future developer wants to understand the rules and what height works, as well as extraordinary reasons such as reflective glass, to make the decision on what height suits that building. He added that in developer's vernacular, when height is taken away, it will be too low, repeating their position that they have the right to build to that height, unless circumstances don't allow. Commissioner O'Malley noted that on various approach procedures, a building of such height could interfere with inbound aircraft picking up the signal. Mr. Van Ligten stated for the record that the Commissioner was referring to the MacArthur Place EIR, approved some years ago with the Development Agreement, after a 45-day comment period. He stated that no comments seem to have been made that the EIR was incorrect. Replying to Commissioner H. Beverburg and Chairman Bresnahan, Staff Analyst Brady confirmed that ALUC staff had commented on the EIR NOP at the time, referencing JW A, the navaids and the FAR Part 77 procedure. He referred to several staff report maps and related the history of the FAA navaids at JW A and the Hutton Center #4 building, explaining that the FAA had removed their VOR transmitter and replaced it with an LDA system when they found the building to be distorting the VOR signals. He noted that this preserved the second instrument approach to Runway 19R for noise abatement purposes, and described inconsistencies in the EIR's graphics labeling and corresponding text about the navaid imaginary surfaces. Mr. Brady located the Geneva Commons site on the graphics and opined that the 21-story building's relation to the surface would need precise calculation. He concluded that he doesn't know whether that imaginary surface represents the point at which obstruction lights are required, as it is a separate criterion from the more familiar Part 77 surfaces. Vince Fregoso, Santa Ana city planner, explained that the area is designated as height exempt, in that vertical limits are based on FAA review and the City's shade/shadow criteria. Replying to Chairman Bresnahan about square footage vis a vis building height, Mr. Fregoso stated that the City was looking for a project that would be consistent with all of its plans, a Class A high-rise residential tower which an l8-story provides. He added that the 18-story, atop the 3-level parking structure creates more of an iconic type design there, as the City has plenty of 12-story buildings, noting that the 18-story is not average or ordinary, Class A is verticality. He confirmed the Chairman's comments that square footage could have been met, but a definitive selection was made for a tall building. Commissioner Propst opined that it is a terrible place for this building, and a discussion ensued about a reconsideration. 75C-179