HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-043 - Airport Land Use for John Wayne Airport RESOLUTION NO. 2026-043
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AUTHORIZING THE PLANNING AND
BUILDING AGENCY TO PROVIDE THE AIRPORT LAND
USE COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY AND THE
CALTRANS DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS WITH THE
PROPOSED DECISION AND FINDINGS TO OVERRULE
THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE
COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE UPDATE (ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2026-03, ZONE CHANGE
NO. 2026-0004, AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO,
2026-04) AND RELATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 2026-02 ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT
ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN FOR JOHN WAYNE
AIRPORT AT LEAST 45 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FUTURE
PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE PROPOSED
OVERRULE BY THE CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO
PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 21676(b)
WHEREAS, Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section -
65300) of the Government Code requires the City of Santa Ana to prepare and adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City, and to
maintain zoning regulations consistent with that general plan; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan includes Implementation Action Reference No. 1.1 of
the Land Use Element to prepare a Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (Zoning Ordinance
Amendment No. 2026-03, Zone Change No. 2026-0004, and Ordinance Amendment No.
2026-04) to implement the City's General Plan Golden City Beyond (2045), adopted by the
City Council in April 2022, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update is accompanied by the related
General Plan Amendment No. 2026-02 to change the General Plan Land Use Designation
for six parcels located throughout the City to correct land use designation mapping errors
and address historical split land use designations ("General Plan Amendment"); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendment
are collectively referred to as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project is a legislative, regulatory framework that establishes
permitted uses, development standards, and airport-compatibility regulations, and does not,
by itself, site, entitle, or authorize construction of any specific building; and
WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code Section 21674 empowers the Airport Land
Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) "to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible
Resolution No. 2026-043
Page 1 of 4
land uses in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those
airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses,"and "to coordinate planning at the state,
regional, and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation,
while at the same time protecting the public health, safety, and welfare; and"
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana is located partially within the area contained within
the scope of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (AELUP); and
WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) requires the City to refer
projects that include a general plan amendment or a zoning ordinance amendment within the
AELUP planning area to the ALUC for a determination of consistency with the AELUP prior
to adoption; and
WHEREAS, the City submitted the Project to the ALUC for consistency review, most
recently in its revised submittal on July 31, 2026, and the ALUC considered the Project on
August 20, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2026, the ALUC, by a vote of 4 in favor and 0 against,
acting on the recommendation contained in its staff report for Agenda Item 1, found the
Project inconsistent with the AELUP pursuant to AELUP Sections 2.1.1 (Aircraft Noise), 2.1.2
(Safety Compatibility Zones), and 2.1.3 (Building Height Restrictions), Section 3.2.1 (General
Policy), and Section 3.2.6 (Height Restriction Zone); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), the City Council may
overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that
the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in
Public Utilities Code Section 21670; and
WHEREAS, at least 45 days prior to any decision to overrule the ALUC, Public Utilities
Code Section 21676(b) requires the City to provide the ALUC and the California Department
of Transportation Division of Aeronautics (Division) a copy of the proposed decision and the
findings supporting the proposed overrule; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared proposed Findings of Fact demonstrating that the
Project is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Public
Utilities Code Section 21670 and consistent with the AELUP, which proposed findings are
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2026, the City Council considered a resolution to
authorize staff to provide the ALUC and the California Department of Transportation Division
of Aeronautics (Division) a copy of the proposed decision and findings, as contained in Exhibit
A, to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and incorporated herein by reference.
Resolution No. 2026-043
Page 2 of 4
ADOPTED this 151" day of September, 2026.
Va rie Amn
Ma
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. arualho ty Attorney
By:
Melissa M. Crosthwaite
Senior Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers Amezcua, Bacerra, Hernandez, Lopez,
Penaloza, Phan, Vazquez (7)
NOES: Councilmembers None (0)
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers None (0)
ABSENT: Councilmembers None (0)
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, JENNIFER L. HALL, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution
No. 2026-043 to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa
Ana on September 15, 2026.
Date: .•'.
nifer L. II
/City Clerk
CI na
Resolution No. 2026-043
Page 4 of 4
Section 2. The City Council hereby declares its intention to overrule the Orange
County ALUC's determination that the City's Comprehensive Zoning Code Update and
related General Plan Amendment (Land Use Map cleanup) are inconsistent with the
Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport.
Section 3. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), the City Council
directs staff to provide the ALUC and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics with a copy of
this Resolution and the proposed Findings of Fact attached as Exhibit "A" at least 45 days
prior to the City Council's decision on whether to overrule the ALUC's determination of
inconsistency.
Section 4. The ALUC and the Division may provide comments -to the City
Council within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. Any comments
received from the ALUC and the Division, while advisory, shall be included in the public
record of the City Council's final decision to overrule. If the ALUC or the Division does not
provide comments within the 30-day period, the City Council may act without them.
Section 5. This Resolution declaring the City Council's intention to overrule
does not constitute the final decision to overrule. Following expiration of the 45-day notice
period and consideration of any advisory comments received, the City Council will
consider a separate resolution making the specific findings required by Public Utilities
Code Section 21676(b) and, by a two-thirds vote, after a public hearing, determine
whether to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency.
Section 6. The City Council finds that the requested action is not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the
activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment) and Section 15061(b)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section
15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical
change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Specifically, the resolution does not have
the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment because it is limited
to the City's proposal to overrule the ALUC's determination and does not commit the City
to approve the Project. Concurrent with the review of the proposed Comprehensive
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendment, the City is preparing an addendum
to the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, which will be presented to the
City Council for consideration, along with the requested zoning ordinance amendment
and general plan amendment, at a future hearing date.
Section 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council, and the City Clerk shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution.
Section 8. The documents and materials that constitute the record of
proceedings on which this Resolution and the proposed findings are based are located at
Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The City Clerk is the
custodian of records for the record of proceedings.
Resolution No. 2026-043
Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
B. Referral requirement. Because the Project includes an amendment to the
General Plan and the adoption of a zoning ordinance amendment within the
AELUP planning area, PUC Section 21676(b) and AELUP Sections 4.3 and 4.4
required the City to refer the Project to the ALUC for a consistency determination
prior to adoption. The City made that referral, most recently in its revised submittal,
and the ALUC considered the Project on August 20, 2026.
C. Referral and ALUC Finding. On August, 20, 2026, the ALUC, by a vote of 4 in
favor and 0 against, acting on the recommendation contained in its staff report for
Agenda Item 1, found the Project inconsistent with the AELUP pursuant to AELUP
Sections 2.1.1 (Aircraft Noise), 2.1.2 (Safety Compatibility Zones), and 2.1.3
(Building Height Restrictions), Section 3.2.1 (General Policy), and Section 3.2.6
(Height Restriction Zone).
D. Overrule authority and vote. Pursuant to PUC Section 21676(b), the City Council
may overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes
specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of the
SAA as stated in PUC Section 21670. A two-thirds vote of the members
constituting a quorum is sufficient. (See 1992 Cal. Atty. Gen. Opinion.)
E. Notice procedure. At least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule, the City must
provide the ALUC and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics (Division) a copy of the
proposed decision and findings. The ALUC and the Division may provide advisory
comments within 30 days of receipt; those comments, while advisory, must be
included in the public record of any final decision to overrule. The City provided the
required notice on September 16, 2026, and conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on November 17, 2026.
F. Standard for findings. The findings must bridge the analytic gap between the raw
evidence and the ultimate decision, demonstrating that the proposed action is
consistent with the purposes stated in PUC Section 21670. (See Topanga Assn.
for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506). These
findings, together with the substantial evidence in the record identified herein,
satisfy that standard.
G. Purposes of the Act. The purposes of the SAA, as stated in PUC Section 21670,
are to (1) provide for the orderly development of each public-use airport and the
area surrounding it; (2) promote the overall goals and objectives of the California
airport noise standards; and (3) prevent the creation of new noise and safety
problems. The findings below are organized to demonstrate the Project's
consistency with each of these purposes.
Exhibit A-DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
Page 2 of 11
Resolution No. 2026-043
Page 6 of 15
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT
IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL
DECISION TO OVERRULE THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE
COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY FOR THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING CODE UPDATE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
I. Introduction and Summary
The City of Santa Ana (City) is required to provide findings supporting the overrule of a
determination of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) as required
by California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676(b). Based on the following
Findings of Fact and the substantial evidence in the public record, the proposed action
by the City on its Comprehensive Zoning Code Update and related General Plan
Amendment (collectively, the Project) is consistent with the purposes of the State
Aeronautics Act (SAA) as stated in PUC Section 21670, and is consistent with the Airport
Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (AELUP for JWA or AELUP.
Specifically, the Project provides for the orderly development of John Wayne Airport
(JWA) and its surrounding area and promotes the overall goals and objectives of the State
airport noise standards by avoiding new noise and safety problems and by protecting the
public health, safety, and welfare through the adoption of land use measures that
minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards, to the extent this
area is not already devoted to incompatible uses. The Project is a legislative, regulatory
framework that implements the City's General Plan Golden City Beyond (2045), adopted
by the City Council in April 2022. It establishes permitted uses, development standards,
and airport-compatibility regulations; it does not, by itself, site, entitle, or authorize
construction of any specific building.
On August 20, 2026, the ALUC, acting on the recommendation contained in its staff report
for Agenda Item 1, found the Project inconsistent with the AELUP for JWA. As set forth
below, that determination is not supported by substantial evidence, rests upon factual
inaccuracies in Exhibit 8 and an outdated AELUP that does not reflect current airport
plans or federal airspace procedures, and misapplies the very guidance on which it relies.
The City Council therefore overrules the ALUC's determination.
il. Legal Framework and Authority
A. Municipal police power. The City of Santa Ana has the general police power to
control land use within its territorial jurisdiction. (Cal. Const., Art. Xi, § 7.) This
constitutional authority is acknowledged in State law (PUC §§ 21670, 21676) and
in the ALUC process (AELUP § 4.11), which expressly allows a local agency to
overrule an ALUC finding of inconsistency.
Exhibit A-DRAFT Findings of fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
Page 1 of 11
Resolution No, 2026-043
Page 5 of 15
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
III. Findings of Fact
A. Nature of the Proposed Action
1. Legislative, implementing framework. The Project consists of (i) a
Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (ZCU) including Zoning Ordinance
Amendment No. 2026-03 and Zoning Change No. 2026-0004 and Ordinance
Amendment No. 2026-04, that repeals and replaces Chapter 27 (Planning) and
Chapter 41 (Zoning)with a new Chapter 41 (Planning and Zoning) and (ii) General
Plan Amendment No. 2026-02 (GPA) that aligns the Land Use Element map with
the General Plan the City Council adopted in April 2022 by applying consistent
land use designations across entire lots where properties currently carry split
designations (the "Cleanup Sites"). The Project implements land uses already
adopted in the 2022 General Plan; the maximum density is not increased by the
Project.
2. Permissive standards do not determine the location of development. The
ZCU establishes permissive uses, maximum development standards, and airport-
compatibility regulations. It does not specify the exact location, height, or
configuration of any implementing development. As with the analogous specific-
plan actions the City Council has previously found consistent with the AELUP, a
legislative framework that establishes maximum permissible envelopes does not,
by itself, place people or structures in any particular location relative to airport
noise or safety features.
3. Self-implementing airport safeguards. The ZCU independently protects JWA
airspace through the City's adopted General Plan. As revised, ZCU Article Ill,
Division 4 (Airport Land Use Compatibility), would direct that development within
the Airport Influence Area "shall comply with relevant policies and implementation
actions of the City of Santa Ana General Plan, the California Public Utilities Code
(PUC) Section 21670 et seq., and the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
77) (also known as Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 standards), as
amended" thereby incorporating the airport-compatibility policies of the General
Plan and making them operative and enforceable through the Zoning Code. The
controlling requirements are therefore those established in the General Plan itself:
The General Plan Safety Element (Policies S-4.1 and S-4.2) and the Noise
Element (Policy N-3.3) reinforce these requirements, and the City requires project-
specific acoustical studies as warranted.
a. Safety Element Policy S-4.1 — for any development that includes
structures higher than 200 feet above existing grade, the City must inform
the ALUC and submit materials for review, and the project must file FAA
Form 7460-1;
Exhibit A-DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
Page 3 of 11
Resolution No. 2026-043
Page 7 of 15
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
b. Safety Element Policy S-4.2— the City shall not approve structures that
would penetrate the FAR Part 77 imaginary obstruction surfaces unless the
FAA determines that the structure would pose no hazard to air navigation,
consistent with PUC Section 21240, and applicants proposing structures
that penetrate the 100:1 Notification Surface must fife FAA Form 7460-1
and provide the FAA determination to the City and the ALUC; and
c. Noise Element Policy N-3.3 and Table N-1 — including the 45 dB CNEL
interior standard for residential and other noise-sensitive uses and the
requirement for project-specific acoustical studies where warranted by a
project's location and characteristics.
Under these General Plan policies — as the source expressly incorporated by the
revised Zoning Code — no structure penetrating an applicable Part 77 surface or
exceeding 200 feet above ground level may be approved without an FAA Form 7460-
1 filing and a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation prior to permit issuance,
and each noise-sensitive project remains subject to the General Plan's interior-noise
and acoustical-study requirements. These General Plan policies are the operative and
controlling airport-compatibility standards that govern individual development within
the Airport Influence Area.
B. Airport Planning Area and Geographic Findings
The three "Project Areas" below are geographic areas that ALUC staff themselves
delineated for this consistency review (staff report, Attachment 3); they do not follow the
ZCU framework.
1. ALUC Staff Report Project Area 1 — 55 Freeway 1 Dyer Road.' This area
comprises non-contiguous properties along SR-55 and Dyer Road between
Warner Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, currently zoned Light Industrial (Ml),
proposed for Community Commercial (CCM), District Center (DC-2), and
Industrial/Flex (FLEX-3). The staff report states that this area is outside the JWA
safety compatibility zones but beneath the Runway 20R departure/arrival corridor;
DC-2 would permit multifamily residential by right at up to 90 dwelling units per
acre. Ground elevation is approximately 41 feet above mean sea level (AMSL); the
FAA 100:1 Notification Surface would be reached at approximately 125'AMSL and
the Obstruction Imaginary Surface at approximately 200' AMSL. Many parcels
IALUC "Project Area 1" (55 Freeway/Dyer Road) corresponds to the City's adopted 2022
General Plan 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area. In its 2021 Findings of Fact overruling the
ALUC on the General Plan Update Golden City Beyond(2045), the City Council found this
Focus Area to be located entirely within the JWA AELUP planning area, and the City Council
adopted its land use designations in April 2022 following that overrule. The Zoning Code Update
merely implements those previously adopted designations.
Exhibit A-DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
Page 4 of 11
Resolution No.2026-043
Page 8 of 15
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
carry the Height Exemption (H) supplemental-standards designation and are
directly beneath the JWA approach corridor.
2. ALUC Staff Report Project Area 2 — MacArthur Boulevard I Dyer Road. This
area (shown as "Project Area 2A and 213" on the proposed zoning maps) consists
of non-contiguous properties generally along MacArthur Boulevard and Dyer Road
between Main Street, currently zoned Specific Development No. 43, Specific
Development No. 76, and Light Industrial (M1). Additional properties located near
Flower Street and Sunflower Avenue are zoned Open Space (OS) and Specific
Development No. 94. The Project would designate these properties District Center
(DC-1, DC-1.5, or DC-2), Urban Neighborhood-Medium High (UN-50), or
Institutional (INS). The District Center districts would permit multifamily residential
by right at up to 90 dwelling units per acre,with libraries, religious facilities, schools,
adult day care facilities, hospitals, and residential care facilities by CUP and
childcare centers by Minor CUP; UN-50 would permit residential by right at up to
50 dwelling units per acre, with libraries, religious facilities, schools, adult day care
facilities, and residential care facilities by CUP; and INS would permit no residential
development but would allow schools by CUP and adult day care facilities by
MCUP. Because the INS district establishes no maximum height in most locations,
the staff report asserts a potential to penetrate the JWA Horizontal Surface. This
area lies within Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone).
3. ALUC Staff Report Project Area 3 — South Bristol Street.2 This area extends
along Bristol Street between East Alton Avenue and Sunflower Avenue, currently
zoned Community Commercial (Cl), General Commercial (C2), Commercial
Residential (CR), Single-Family Residence (R1), Suburban Apartment (R4), or
Open Space (0), proposed for Urban Neighborhood—Medium (UN-40), District
Center—High (DC-5), and related designations. The proposed DC-5 zoning would
establish a maximum height of 255 feet above ground level. Portions of this area
lie beneath the JWA Horizontal Surface at 206 feet AMSL; with existing ground
elevations of approximately 34 feet AMSL, a structure of approximately 172'AMSL
could penetrate the Horizontal Surface. This is the same South Bristol Street area,
and substantially the same DC-5 land use, that the City Council previously adopted
in the 2022 General Plan after overruling the ALUC's 2021 determination of
inconsistency.
2ALUC "Project Area 3" (South Bristol Street) corresponds to the City's adopted 2022 General
Plan South Bristol Focus Area. In its 2021 Findings of Fact, the City Council found this Focus
Area to be located entirely within the JWA AELUP planning area and expressly overruled the
ALUC's determination of inconsistency as to the South Bristol area's District Center—High (DC-
5) land use,which the Council then adopted in April 2022. The Zoning Code Update's DC-5
zoning implements that adopted designation.
Exhibit A-DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
Page 5 of 11
Resolution No. 2026-043
Page 9 of 15
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
4. GPA "Cleanup Sites." The General Plan Amendment aligns split land use
designations across five sites. Only Sites 2 and 4 lie within the JWA Notification
Area (Site 2 at 1319 South Sycamore Street and 1322 and 1344 South Main
Street; Site 4 at 2141 South Sycamore Street), where the amendment would
replace Low Density Residential (LR-7) with Urban Neighborhood-Low (UN-20) at
up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The staff report expressly states that the Cleanup
Sites are not within the Safety Zones for JWA and are not within the
Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JWA. The Cleanup Sites make only
conforming, map-alignment changes and introduce no new incompatible land use
within any airport noise contour, safety zone, or Part 77 surface.
C. Consistency with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act (PUC § 21670)
1. Orderly development of the airport and surrounding area. The Project
promotes orderly development by requiring, through the General Plan policies S-
4.1 and S-4.2 incorporated by the ZCU's Airport Land Use Compatibility division,
an FAA Form 7460-1 filing and Determination of No Hazard for any development
within the Airport Influence Area that exceeds 200 feet above ground level or
penetrates an applicable Part 77 surface. This ensures that individual projects —
which the legislative framework does not itself authorize—will each be evaluated
against current federal airspace standards before approval.
2. Promotion of State airport noise-standard goals. The General Plan Noise
Element establishes an interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL for residential uses
and noise-sensitive uses, and the City requires project-specific acoustical studies
where warranted by a project's location and characteristics. These measures
advance the goals of the California airport noise standards by ensuring that noise-
sensitive uses are designed to mitigate aircraft noise to acceptable interior levels.
3. Prevention of new noise and safety problems. The Project does not add any
new residential or commercial use to the JWA 65 dBA CNEL noise-impact area
that is not already devoted to urban uses, and it does not authorize any structure
without a subsequent, project-level compatibility and federal airspace review.
Conditional Use Permit requirements for high-occupancy sensitive uses allow the
City to impose conditions of approval — including building-occupancy limits and
avigation easement dedications -- to avoid new safety problems, consistent with
the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011) ("Handbook").
D. The ALUC's Determination Rests on an Outdated AELUP
1. The AELUP has not been updated to reflect current conditions. The AELUP
for JWA was last amended April 17, 2008, and is built upon the JWA Airport Layout
Plan (ALP) approved in March 2005. It has not been updated to incorporate: (i) the
2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook; (ii) the September 30, 2014
JWA Settlement Agreement Extension; (iii) the June 2019 General Aviation
Exhibit A-DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support ofALUC Overrule
Page 6 of 11
Resolution No. 2026-043
Page 10 of 15
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
Improvement Program (GRIP) and its certified EIR; or(iv)the FAA-approved ALP.
The safety-zone exhibit relied upon in the staff report (Attachment 8) is itself
derived from the outdated January 2002 edition of the Handbook.
2. Current federal airspace procedures are not reflected. In 2009, the FAA
implemented precision Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) procedures using Area
Navigation (RNAV) technology at JWA, which account for existing tall structures in
the airport vicinity and high terrain north of the airport for the entire fleet of aircraft
using the airport. The 2008 AELUP predates and does not reflect these
procedures. A determination of inconsistency premised on a plan that does not
reflect the current airport layout or current federal airspace management is not
supported by substantial evidence of an actual, current airport-compatibility
conflict.
E. Response to the Three Grounds Recommended in the ALUC Staff Report
(August 20, 2026)
The ALUC staff report recommended a determination of inconsistency on three grounds.
Each is addressed and rebutted below.
1. AELUP § 2.1.1 (Aircraft Noise). The staff report asserts that the Project would
allow high-density residential within the 60 dBA CNEL contour and additional
noise-sensitive uses within the 65 dBA CNEL contour beneath the primary JWA
approach path.
a. The Project is a legislative framework that does not itself site any dwelling
unit; each residential project remains subject to the General Plan Noise
Element's 45 dB CNEL interior standard and to project-level acoustical
study, which mitigate aircraft-noise exposure to acceptable interior levels.
b. The areas identified are within the larger, already-urbanized environs of
JWA and are not"not already devoted"to urban uses; the Project introduces
no new noise problem that the record establishes with substantial evidence,
as distinct from the theoretical maximum of a permissive standard.
c. Flight-track exhibits reflecting four summer-2026 days do not constitute
substantial evidence that any actual future development authorized under
the framework will be incompatibly exposed, particularly where each project
is separately reviewed.
2. AELUP § 2.1.2 (Safety Compatibility Zones). The staff report asserts that the
use tables would allow children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals,
residential care facilities, and comparable sensitive uses within Safety Zone 6,
where such uses should be avoided.
Exhibit A-DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
Page 7 of 11
Resolution No. 2026-043
Page 11 of 15
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
a. The staff report is internally self-defeating. The report acknowledges that
the Handbook identifies Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone) as a low-risk
area in which residential uses are "normally allowed," subject to
consideration of noise and overflight. A determination of inconsistency
premised on uses the governing guidance treats as normally allowed in that
zone is not supported by substantial evidence.
b. The most intensive sensitive uses (hospitals, residential/nursing care, and
comparable high-occupancy uses) require a CUP or Minor CUP, preserving
the City's ability to impose conditions of approval---including careful review
of actual proposed uses for compatibility, occupancy limits and avigation
easement dedications —consistent with the Handbook's infill guidance.
c. The Safety Zone 6 boundary relied upon (staff report Attachment 8) is
expressly derived from the January 2002 edition of the Handbook and is not
an objective standard adopted in Section 2.1 of the 2008 AELUP; the
Commission is effectively importing Handbook safety zones that its own
adopted compatibility plan never incorporated. Further, Attachment 8
depicts the Project Areas identified by ALUC staff incorrectly. If ALUC
Project Areas 1, 2b, and 3 were depicted correctly, these areas are
completely outside of the JWA safety zones. A portion of ALUC Staff Report
Area 2a is within the Safety Zone 6 boundary but all of the proposed land
uses comply with the Safety Zone 6 allowed land uses.
d. The City's own submittal confirms that the highest-density districts in the
Traffic Pattern Zone (UN-50 and DC-1, -1.5, and -2) are permitted by right
as infill of existing development, consistent with the Handbook, and that
high-occupancy uses such as hospitals, schools, and community
assemblies are regulated through Conditional Use Permits precisely so the
City may carefully review actual proposed uses for their compatibility and
impose appropriate safety conditions during entitlement.
3. AELUP § 2.1.3 (Building Height Restrictions). The staff report asserts that the
proposed DC-5, Height Exemption (H), and uncapped INS standards would allow
structures that may penetrate the Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces, and that
an FAA Determination of No Hazard does not automatically establish ALUC
consistency.
a. Obstruction is not hazard. Penetration of a Part 77 imaginary or
notification surface triggers only a federal duty to notify the FAA; only the
FAA determines whether a structure is a hazard to air navigation. The City's
General Plan Safety Element (Policy S-4.2), as incorporated by the ZCU's
Airport Land Use Compatibility division, already prohibits City approval of
Exhibit A-DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
Page 8 of 11
Resolution No.2026-043
Page 12 of 15
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
any structure that would penetrate the FAR Part 77 imaginary obstruction
surfaces unless the FAA determines the structure would pose no hazard —
requiring an FAA Form 7460-1 filing and a Determination of No
Hazard before a building permit is issued.
b. The FAA is the sole authoritative source of airspace-impact information. On
the analogous project records previously before this Council, the ALUC
identified no aeronautical study, and no petition for discretionary review
under 14 C.F.R. § 77.37, refuting the FAA's determinations. A bare
assertion that the Commission "may still find" a project inconsistent on an
obstruction theory, without evidence of a substantial adverse effect on the
safe and efficient use of navigable airspace, is not substantial evidence.
c. The height concern is directed at maximum permissive envelopes (DC-5 at
255' AGL; H-designated and uncapped INS parcels), not at any actual
proposed structure. Because no structure may be permitted without the
federal review the ZCU mandates, the framework does not create a present
airspace conflict.
d. Finality and consistency. The South Bristol Street DC-5 land use was
adopted by the City Council in the 2022 General Plan after the Council
lawfully overruled the ALUC's 2021 determination on that same land use, in
part because the project,received an FAA determination of no hazard. The
ZCU merely implements that adopted designation; principles of consistency
and finality weigh in favor of the City.
F. No Basis Exists to Find the GPA "Cleanup Sites" Inconsistent
1 . As the staff report itself concedes, the GPA "Cleanup Sites" are not located within
any JWA Safety Zone and are not located within the Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary
Surfaces. The Cleanup Sites make only conforming map-alignment changes and
introduce no new incompatible use within any airport noise contour, safety zone,
or airspace surface. There is accordingly no evidentiary basis to find the General
Plan Amendment inconsistent with the AELUP, and the City finds the GPA
consistent with the purposes of the SAA.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and the substantial evidence in the public record,
the City Council of the City of Santa Ana finds that the Project — the Comprehensive
Zoning Code Update and the related General Plan Amendment --- is consistent with the
purposes of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in PUC Section 21670, and is consistent
with the AELUP for JWA. The ALUC's determination of inconsistency is not supported by
substantial evidence, rests on an outdated 2008 AELUP that does not reflect the FAA-
Exhibit A-DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
Page 9 of 11
Resolution No.2026-043
Page 13 of 16
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
approved 2005-superseding ALP or current RNAVIGPS airspace procedures, and
misapplies the Handbook guidance on which it relies.
Recommendation. The City Council:
1. Finds that the Project is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act
as stated in PUC Section 21670 and consistent with the AELUP for JWA;
2. Overrules the ALUC's determination that the Project is inconsistent with the
AELUP for JWA, by a two-thirds vote of the City Council pursuant to PUC Section
21676(b); and
3. Directs staff to provide notice of the decision to overrule to the ALUC and the
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and to include any advisory comments received
in the public record.
V. Reserved — Responses to ALUC and Caltrans Advisory Comments
[Reserved. To be completed after the Notice of Intent to Overrule is transmitted to the
ALUC and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and the 30-day advisory comment period
closes. This section will summarize and respond to each advisory comment received,
consistent with PUC Section 21676(b). The City's record will include any comments
received from the ALUC and Caltrans.]
A. Principal Record Materials Relied Upon
The following list of record materials have been relied upon, as applicable, to assemble
the foregoing Findings of Fact.
• ALUC for Orange County, Staff Report and Recommendation, Agenda Item 1 ---
City of Santa Ana Comprehensive Zoning Code Update and General Plan
Amendment (August 20, 2026), including Attachments 8-12.
• Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (amended April 17, 2008),
including Section 2.1 objective standards and Appendix D (2005 ALP).
• FAA-approved JWA Airport Layout Plan.
• California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,
2011), Chapter 5 (Responsibilities of Local Agencies; Overrule Process and
Findings).
• City of Santa Ana General Plan Golden City Beyond (2045), adopted April 2022,
including Land Use, Noise, and Safety Elements; and the certified Final Program
EIR (April 2022) and Addendum.
Exhibit A-DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
Page 10 of 11
Resolution No. 2026-043
Page 14 of 15
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
• City of Santa Ana Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (Public Hearing Draft,
June 2026), Article III, Division 4 (Airport Land Use Compatibility), Section 41-391;
Division 6 (Height Exemption).
• City Council Resolution No. 2022-031 overruling the ALUC re: General Plan
Update Golden City Beyond (2045), and supporting Findings of Fact (Exhibit A).
• Caltrans Division of Aeronautics comment letter (December 6, 2021) on the prior
General Plan Update overrule.
Exhibit A-DRAFT Findings of Fact in Support of ALUC Overrule
Page 11 of 11
Resolution No. 2026-043
Page 15 of 15
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK