Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2. <br /> <br />8. <br /> <br />The land use planning and zoning actions for this project will not <br />interfere with the approaches to the airport runways. <br /> <br />I. <br /> <br />The FAA Aeronautical Study considered and analyzed the <br />impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en <br />route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual <br />flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR) and <br />determined the project to be no hazard to air navigation. <br /> <br />il. <br /> <br />As stated in the Krause Analysis, "[a]lthough the proposed <br />Geneva Commons. buildings will exceed the standards of <br />FAR Part 77, the building site does not adversely impact any <br />Instrument Approach Procedures, Departure Procedures or <br />VFR procedures. at John Wayne Airport. The FAA <br />evaluation found that there would be no significant adverse <br />effect upon visual Flight rules (VFR) operations, or upon <br />instrument flight rules (IFR) operations, or upon the <br />operation of an air navigatiOn aid (NAVAID) if the building <br />were built to the héightrequested in the FAA Form 7460.1. <br />My study affirms the VFR and IFR operations determination <br />issued by the FAA."Krause Analysis Section 3.0. <br /> <br />iil. <br /> <br />Therefore, since this project is consistent with the long-range <br />development Of JWA!and this project will not interfere with <br />the approaches to the airport runways, this project will <br />provide for the orderly development of JWA. <br /> <br />How does this project promote the overall goals and objectives of the <br />California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669? <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Resolution 2005-040 <br />Page 10 of61 <br /> <br />Santa Ana's current Noise Element was adopted in 1982. The <br />AELUP was amended most recently in 2002. While there are <br />inconsistencies between the AELUP and Santa Ana's Noise <br />Element, the inconsistencies are irrelevant to this project. The <br />inconsistencies are as follows: <br /> <br />I. <br /> <br />While :;¡imilar, the graphic illustrating the noise contour for <br />JWA in the Noh.e. Element is not identical to the noise <br />contour in the AELUP. The noise element graphic <br />illustrating the noise contour for JWA was hand drawn rather <br />than prepared via the computer as it was in the AELUP. <br /> <br />In the noise element, the maximum acceptable noise level <br />for high density residential is 70 d8(A) CNEL, while the <br />AELUP identifies 65 dl3 (A) CNEL as "normally inconsistent." <br /> <br />il. <br /> <br />iiI. <br /> <br />The AELUP states in the description under "Normally <br />Inconsistent", "[a]1I residential units are inconsistent unless <br />