HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-86 - Overrule OC Airport Land Use Commission's Determination (Proposed Wyndham Boutique Hotel/High-Rise Residential Project)RESOLUTION NO. 07-66
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, TO OVERRULE
THE
ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND
USE
COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT
THE
PROPOSED WYNDHAM BOUTIQUE HOTEL /
HIGH-
RISE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (INCLUDING GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT GP -06-03 AND SPECIFIC
PLAN
AMENDMENT SP -07-01) ARE INCONSISTENT
WITH
THE 2002 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT ENVIRONS
LAND
USE PLAN.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES
AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2000
General Plan on January 22, 2002;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan by Resolution No. 94-67 in July 1994;
WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan and North Costa Mesa Specific
Plan need to be updated and refined to account for current and future community
needs;
WHEREAS, Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1054 (State
Clearinghouse Number 2007011125) has been prepared by the City of Costa Mesa for
the Wyndham Boutique Hotel / High -Rise Residential Project;
WHEREAS, the proposed Wyndham Boutique Hotel / High -Rise Residential
project analyzed in Final EIR No. 1054 involves the construction of a mixed-use
development by Makar Properties at 3350 Avenue of the Arts involving: (1) Certification
of Final EIR No. 1054 which consists of a comprehensive analysis of the environmental
impacts and any required mitigation measures for the proposed project pursuant to
State Law; (2) General Plan Amendment GP -06-03 to amend the Land Use Element of
the General Plan to incorporate provisions for high-rise residential development in the
project area; (3) North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Amendment SP -07-01 to establish
development standards and other related provisions in the NCMSP for the project; (4)
Final Master Plan PA -06-75 for a boutique hotel with 200 rooms, meeting rooms,
restaurant, spa and fitness facilities; a 23 -story high-rise residential building with 120
for -sale condominium units, a 3,450 square foot lounge/bar, and 1,740 square foot of
ancillary retail uses; and a seven -level, 480 -space parking structure; (5) Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 17172 for the subdivision of the property for condominium
purposes;
WHEREAS, the proposed North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Amendment SP -07-
01 involves a maximum building height of 280 feet above grade level for the project site,
and Final Master Plan PA -06-75 involves a proposed high-rise residential building at a
building height of approximately 23 -stories / 304 feet above mean sea level;
WHEREAS, in July 2007, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a
Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for the proposed Wyndham Boutique
Hotel / High -Rise Residential project. In context with the other existing high-rise
buildings in the South Coast Plaza Town Center area (i.e. Center Tower, Plaza Tower,
DiTech/Comerica buildings), the FAA did not consider the project to be significant. The
FAA determined that the project would have no greater effect upon the safe and
efficient utilization of the navigable airspace and therefore would not be a hazard to air
navigation.
WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) requires the City of
Costa Mesa to refer the proposed project to the Orange County Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) for consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP);
WHEREAS, on August 16 and September 20, 2007, the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) considered the proposed Wyndham Boutique Hotel / High -Rise
2
Residential Project at duly noticed public hearings, and found the proposed project
inconsistent with the John Wayne AELUP on a 4-3 vote;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 and 21676, the City
of Costa Mesa may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the ALUC by a four-fifths
vote of the City Council, if the City of Costa Mesa makes specific findings that the
proposed project is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670;
WHEREAS, at a duly -noticed public hearing on October 2, 2007, the Costa Mesa
City Council took action by a 3-0 vote to notify the ALUC of the Council's intent to
overrule the ALUC's Determination of Inconsistency for the proposed North Costa Mesa
High -Rise Residential projects by adoption of Resolution No. 07-73.
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 21676, the City
provided 45 -day advance notice to the Department of Transportation Division of
Aeronautics and the ALUC of the Council's intent to overrule the ALUC Determination in
a letter dated October 3, 2007;
WHEREAS, in November 2007, the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics sent a comment letter to the City within the State
mandated 30 -day period to receive comments. The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics'
letter described the agency's responsibility to examine the Council's findings for the
overrule action and to make a determination of consistency of those findings with the
purposes of the statute as set forth in Public Utilities Code Section 21670;
WHEREAS, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics determined that the City Council
proposed overrule findings adequately met the criteria of Public Utilities Code Section
21670,
WHEREAS, the City Council considered all public comments and written
correspondence received regarding the ALUC's Inconsistency Determination prior to
rendering a final decision to overrule the ALUC Determination.
WHEREAS, the August 16 and September 20, 2007 ALUC staff reports, ALUC
Inconsistency Determination Resolution, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
correspondence are retained as part of the final administrative record;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Costa Mesa City Council DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
TO OVERRULE the ALUC Inconsistency Determination indicating that the proposed
Wyndham Boutique Hotel / High -Rise Residential project (inclusive of General Plan
Amendment GP -06-03 and North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Amendment SP -07-01) are
inconsistent with the 2002 John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council DOES HEREBY ADOPT the
required findings in support of the City's overrule of the ALUC Determination, as shown
in Exhibit "A". FINDINGS.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council action to overrule the ALUC
Inconsistency Determination will maintain the City's status as a consistent agency with
the AELUP.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council considered correspondence
received from the Airport Land Use Commission (letter dated November 13, 2007) and
from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics (letter dated November 20, 2007), and these
letters are included as Exhibits "B" and "C" of the resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 201" day of November, 2007.
AI✓t,
Allan R. Mansoor, Mayor
4
ATTEST:
{orJuli olciik City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
0,.,
Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, JULIE FOLCIK, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 07-86 and was duly
passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting
held on the 20th day of November, 2007, by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MANSOOR, BEVER, DIXON, FOLEY, LEECE
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NONE
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the
City of Costa Mesa this 21st day of November, 2007.
cdf�,641�
-rq JULIE FOLCIK, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS
The Costa Mesa City Council makes the following findings as stated in Section 21670
and required by Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code as follows:
A. Section 2.1.3 of the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP)
indicates that the Airport Land Use Commission recognizes the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) as the single "Authority' for analyzing project impact on
airport or aeronautical operations, or navigational -aid siting, including
interference with navigational -aids or published flight paths and procedures. The
AELUP also indicates that the Commission considers the FAA as the "Authority'
for reporting results of such studies and project analyses. The FAA No Hazard
Determination of July 23, 2007 indicates that the proposed buildings is not
considered a hazard to air navigation at a maximum height of 270 above grade
level / 304 feet above mean sea level. The following building height limits for the
proposed Master Plan PA -06-75 and Specific Plan Amendment SP -07-01 are
shown in Table 1:
Table t
HEIGHT LIMIT
Project Site
Master Plan
Specific Plan
Building Height
Height Limits
Limit
PROPOSED PROJECT:
304' AMSL
280' AGL
WYNDHAM BOUTIQUE
HOTELI HIGH-RISE
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
3350 Avenue of the Arts
B. It is in the public interest to (1) provide for the orderly development of each public
use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to (2)
promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards
adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to (3) prevent the creation of new noise
and safety problems.
(1) To provide for the orderly development of John Wayne Airport (JWA) and
the area surrounding the airport, the ALUC adopted the 2002 Airport Environs
Land Use Plan (AELUP) on December 19, 2002. AELUP Section 2.2.1 sets
standards and criteria based on the continuing operation of John Wayne
Airport as a commercial and general aviation airport. The AELUP standards
guide development proposals to best provide for orderly development of the
airport and the area surrounding the airport through implementation of the
standards in Section 2.2.1 for CNEL CONTOURS, ACCIDENT POTENTIAL
ZONES/RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES AND BUILDING HEIGHT
RESTRICTIONS.
The ALUC staff report prepared for the ALUC during its review of the
proposed application on August 16 and September 20, 2007, indicated that
there is a "basis for finding the proposed project [as conditionally consistent)
with the JWA AELUP." The ALUC staff report indicated that ALUC staff has
reviewed this project with respect to compliance with the JWA AELUP,
including review of noise, height restrictions, imaginary surfaces, flight track
information and environmental compliance. Based upon staffs review of the
proposed project, including review of the FAA Determination of No Hazard
and review of past Consistency actions by the ALUC for projects in this area.
The projects' compliance with Section 2.2.1 is established as follows:
CNEL CONTOURS — The proposed Wyndham Boutique Hotel I
High -Rise Residential project is outside the AELUP's Noise Impact
Zone No. 1 (65 dB CNEL) and No. 2 (60 dB CNEL) noise contours,
however the City project approval requires that the applicant meet
City noise standards, which are consistent with the sound
attenuation level of 45 dB CNEL included in the AELUP Section
3.3.6.
ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES/RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES
— The proposed project is outside of John Wayne Airport (JWA)
Runway Protection Zones as depicted in Appendix D of the AELUP;
the ALUC has not adopted any Accident Potential Zones for this
airport because none could be justified with the available data.
BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS — As evidenced by a Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Determination of "No Hazard to
Navigation" issued for the proposed project, the project does not
represent a hazard to air navigation. The FAA No Hazard
Determination (dated July 23, 2007) was issued for a proposed
building height of 270 feet AGL 1304 feet AMSL.
Section 2.2.1 also allows the ALUC to "consider utilization of criteria for
protecting aircraft traffic patterns at the airport which may differ from those
contained in FAR Part 77, should evidence of health, welfare, or air safety
surface sufficient to justify such action." The ALUC "will utilize the results of an
Aeronautical Study, conducted by the FAA pursuant to FAR Part 77.13, in order
to determine if a structure will have an adverse effect on the airport or on
aeronautical operations."
The Council acknowledges that the Commission may utilize criteria for protecting
aircraft traffic patterns at individual airports which may differ from those contained
in FAR Part 77, should evidence of health, welfare, or air safety surface sufficient
to justify such an action. However, the Council considered the FAA No Hazard
Determination that the proposed buildings would not present a hazard to air
navigation. Therefore, the City Council finds the ALUC's belief that the proposed
projects would increase public exposure to safety hazards was not based on
substantial evidence that was introduced, commented on, or identified in support
of the incompatibility finding.
(2) The City of Costa Mesa requires that the development proposal meet the
City's noise standards of 45 dB CNEL for the interior of residential uses, which is
consistent with the standards established to promote the overall goals and
objectives of the California airport noise standards. A condition has been placed
on the project to demonstrate compliance with the City's noise standards before
the City will issue each building permit for the project. Through implementation
of the City's noise standards, the project meets the AELUP standards for
California airport noise standards.
(3) The standards established in Section 2.2.1 of the AELUP were adopted to
prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. The proposed project
complies with the standards established in Section 2.2.1 of the AELUP through
compliance with the noise criteria for CNEL noise contours, and the proposed
project is outside the 60 dB CNEL noise contour and accident potential
zones/runway protection zones. The FAA has completed its review of the
proposed buildings which are penetrating the Part 77 horizontal imaginary
surface of 206 feet above mean sea level, and the FAA has determined the
proposed buildings do not represent a hazard to air navigation. Section 2.2.1 of
the AELUP also states that the ALUC has not adopted any Accident Potential
Zones for this airport because none could be justified with the available data. By
requiring project adherence to the established standards in the AELUP, the City
has taken measures to assure risks to people and property on the ground, and to
the occupants of aircraft, are held to a minimum.
C. The Council considered the ALUC meeting minutes of August 16 and September
20, 2007 prior to rendering the final overrule decision. However, the City Council
finds that there was no substantial evidence presented by the ALUC or to the
ALUC at its hearing(s) to support the ALUC's Determination of Inconsistency as
related to the above standard regarding criteria or aeronautical study.
D. It is the purpose of Chapter 3.5 of the State Aeronautics Act to (1) protect public
health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the
(2) adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to
excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the
extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.
E. The Council considered the California Department of Transportation Division of
Aeronautics comment letter received in November 2007 and all other
correspondence related to the ALUC Inconsistency Determination in their entirety
prior to rendering the final overrule decision. The Cattrans Division of
Aeronautics must find and determine that the overrule findings are in accordance
with State law. Specifically, the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics must determine
that the findings show evidence that the city is minimizing the public's exposure
to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports. In
summary, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics concluded that the proposed overrule
findings adequately meet the criteria of Public Utilities Code Section 21670.
Therefore, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics has determined that the City is in
compliance with State law in its action to overrule the ALUC Determination, and
the Council findings show evidence that the City of Costa Mesa is minimizing the
public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within the North Costa
Mesa area around John Wayne Airport. Furthermore, Council has conditioned
the proposed project to comply with conditions of the FAA No Hazard
Determinations.
F. The Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) is based on the continuing
operation of John Wayne Airport as a commercial and general aviation airport
facility. The ALUC's authority to formulate land use plans is embodied in the
John Wayne AELUP, which includes criteria in Section 2.2.1 to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports. The
proposed project, including General Plan Amendment and North Costa Mesa
Specific Plan Amendment, meet the criteria set forth in the AELUP Section 2.2.1
as the standards and criteria for development in the airport environs area. Thus,
the proposed projects provide a development plan for property that will protect
the public health, safety, and welfare and ensure the orderly expansion of the
airport. The City Council believes that the ALUC's determination was apparently
based on the speculative basis that that FAA could in the future modify the traffic
pattern around the airport because of the project buildings. However, no such
modification has occurred, and the FAA has not announced the intention to make
such modification(s). This speculation cannot provide the basis for a
determination of non-compliance.
G. The standards and criteria established in Section 2.2.1 of the AELUP are
adopted by the ALUC to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and
safety hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the standards and
criteria established in Section 2.2.1 of the AELUP. By meeting the criteria in
Section 2.2.1 of the AELUP including criteria for noise, runway protection zones
and building height restrictions, the proposed development will minimize the
public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around
public airports through subjection of the projects to conditions identified by the
ALUC. The conditions require sound attenuation of noise impacts to meet City
and California airport minimum standards, obstruction lighting and marking
consistent with the FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1, "Notice of Airport in vicinity"
to future occupants, outdoor signage depicting the presence of operating aircraft
in community areas of the project, and the requirement to obtain an
encroachment permit for the construction activities.
10
H. The City Council has imposed the recommended conditions of approval as
suggested by John Wayne Airport, with the exception of a condition requiring that
the City refer revised projects which request additional building height to the
ALUC for review. Given the ALUC's finding of inconsistency for the currently
proposed buildings, the City shall not impose this condition requiring future ALUC
referral; however, the City shall continue to refer projects involving General Plan
and Specific Plan amendments to the ALUC for review, as required by the JWA
AELUP. Therefore, future revisions in building height that do not exceed the
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan limit (i.e. 280 feet above grade level), that do not
require a General Plan amendment, and that are submitted with a valid/current
FAA No Hazard Determination, shall not require ALUC referral.
11
ORANGE COUNTY
ALUG
EXHIBIT B
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012
RECEIVED
,[elle CITY OF COSTA MESA
November 13, 2007
NOV 19 2001
Ms. Claire Flynn, Acting Principal Planner
City of Costa Mesa
P.O. Box 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
SUBJECT: City of Costa Mesa — Proposed Overrule Action on Wyndham Boutique Hotel/High-Rise
Residential Project 3350 Avenue of the Arts
Dear Ms. Flynn:
We are in receipt of your letter dated October 3, 2007, and City Council Resolution No. 07-73 containing
proposed overrule findings for the above -referenced project. Regarding the subject Proposed City
Overrule Action, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County wishes to provide the
following comments.
Please be advised that California Public Utilities Code Section 21678 states: "With respect to a publicly
owned airport that a public agency does not operate, if the public agency pursuant to Section 21676,
21676.5, or 21677 overrules a commission's action or recommendation, the operator of the airport shall
be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or
indirectly from the public agency's decision to overrule the commission's action or recommendation."
You reference the Notice of Airport in Vicinity in Section J of the resolution. California Business &
Professions Code Section 11010 requires the following statement to be included on sale/lease disclosure
documents for developments within an ALUC's "Airport Influence Area":
"NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY
This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport
influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or
inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (For example: noise, vibration, or
odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may
wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you
complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you."
On September 20, 2007, the ALUC for Orange County found the Wyndham Boutique Hotel/High-Rise
Residential project to be Inconsistent with the John Wayne Airport—Airport Environs Land Use Plan
(JWA AELUP) on a 4-3 vote (please be aware you indicate a 5-3 vote in your letter dated October 3, 2007
and in the Resolution 07-73) based upon the third paragraph of Section 2.1.3 on page 13 of the JWA
AELUP which states: "The Commission may utilize criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at
Ms. Claire Flynn
December 15, 2006
Page 2
individual airports which may differ from those contained in FAR Part 77, should evidence of health,
welfare, or air safety surface sufficient to justify such an action." Also, please refer to JWA AELUP
Section 3.2.8 (page 25), regarding the height restriction zone wherein a project that by reason of height or
location would cause a diminution in the utility of an airport is unacceptable to the ALUC. Section D of
the City's resolution states that the ALUC's belief that the proposed projects would increase public
exposure to safety hazards was not based on substantial evidence that was introduced, commented on, or
identified in support of the incompatibility finding. In fact, the ALUC did base its finding on the
following evidence and facts in the written record and during extensive discussion by the Commission.
As the public record of the September 20, 2007 ALUC meeting shows, ALUC deliberations utilized the
results of the aeronautical study conducted by the FAA pursuant to FAR Part 77.13 and other relevant
factors including but not limited to: penetration of the FAA FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces by the
proposed buildings; the "Additional Information" sections of the FAA Determinations of No Hazard;
current flight track information; and specific references to JWA AELUP Section 2.1.3, Section 2.2.1 and
Section 3.2.8. The draft minutes of the meeting (attached) specify the facts and information the
Commissioners considered in arriving at their finding. These include, but were not limited to: the
cumulative effect of multiple high-rise projects in the area; the addition of residential high-rise use; the
proposed building heights surpassing the FAA FAR Part 77 horizontal surface by 98 feet; impacts to the
JWA flight path; the presence of flight and helicopter tracks directly over the proposed project area; the
penetration of the standard Visual Flight Rules (vfi) traffic pattern criteria; and the fact that the proposed
buildings are "obstructions" per FAR Part 77.23 and Part 77.25.
In the "Additional Information" section of FAA's Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation, the
FAA noted that the structure is identified as an obstruction by exceeding the standards of Federal
Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Subpart C, as follows:
77.23(a)(2), by 48 feet, a height more than 200 feet above the SNA field elevation (56'AMSL) within 3
NM of the Airport Reference Point.
77.25(a), by 98 feet, a height exceeding the SNA Horizontal Surface
The FAA further states that application of standard VFR traffic pattern criteria finds that although the site
underlies the VFR Tmffic Pattern Airspace for the airport, the structure height will have no greater
cumulative impact on VFR Traffic Pattern Operations than previously studied and determined structures
of similar height. Because of prior airspace determinations issued for structures in the area, the proposed
structures "will have no greater effect upon the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace."
This implies that there is an existing adverse effect already in place. If other buildings were not present,
the criteria set forth in JWA AELUP Section 2.2.1 related to height restrictions and safety hazards within
areas around public airports would likely not be met. Rather than minimizing the public's exposure to
safety hazards, the project would increase the public exposure to safety hazards.
In addition, when the proposed structure reaches its maximum height the FAA has required submittal of
FAA Form 7460-2 with an attached IA- accuracy as -built certified survey. This information will be used
for aeronautical charting. If, because of these buildings, the FAA modifies the traffic pattern, as it did
with a recent project in the adjacent City of Irvine, this would adversely affect published flight paths or
procedures. It is the job of the ALUC for Orange County to protect the existing air traffic pattern in order
to provide for optimal operation of JWA.
Ms. Claire Flynn
December 15, 2006
Page 3
The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (page 9-6, January 2002) emphasizes that the FAA
aeronautical studies are concerned only with airspace hazards, not with hazards to people and property on
the ground. The handbook further states that an FAA determination of"no hazard" says nothing about
whether proposed construction is compatible with airport activity in terms of safety and noise. Final
findings of Consistency are made by the Commission based upon information presented by staff, project
proponents and Commissioners. As stated in the JWA AELUP, the ALUC has the responsibility to
consider the broader perspective in matters affecting the public's well being and the viability of public
aviation facilities. The ALUC accomplishes these overall goals by applying its discretion to evaluate
individual projects based upon a wide range of facts gathered through public testimony and
Commissioners' knowledge, in addition to informative analysis provided by staff.
By virtue of being clearly stated in JWA AELUP Sections 1.2 "Purpose and Scope" and 2.0 "Planning
Guidelines," every Commissioner understands the complex legal charge to protect the public airports
from encroachment by incompatible land use development, while simultaneously protecting the health,
safety and welfare of citizens who work and live in the airport's environs. To this end, and as also
statutorily required, our ALUC proceedings are benefited by several members "having expertise in
aviation" Based upon our careful consideration of all information provided, and input from our members
with expertise in aviation, a majority of the ALUC found the proposed Wyndham Boutique Hotel/High-
Residential project to be Inconsistent with the JWA AELUP.
We urge the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa to take all these matters into consideration in their
deliberations prior to deciding whether to overrule the ALUC. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
these comments.
Sincerely, , _ _
Gerald A. Bresng(�an
Chairman (/
cc: Members of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County
Members of City Council
Members of City Planning Commission
Chris Ferrell, Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics
EXHIBIT C
STATEOFM70"IN A H US A FN pRN O W EN
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF AERONAUTICS-M.S.#40
1120 N STREET
P. O. BOX 942873 Flay wpowerl
SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 a
PHONE (916) 6544959
FAX (916) 653-9531
TTY (916)651-6827
November 20, 2007
Ms. Claire Flynn, Acting Principal Planner
City of Costa Mesa
PO Box 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
Dear Ms. Flynn:
Re: Proposed Overrule on Wyndham Boutique Hotel/High-Rise Residential Project, 3350
Avenue of the Arts
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department), Division of
Aeronautics (Division) in the overrule process for the above -referenced project. California Public
Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676 (http:www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html),, requires the
Department to review the specific findings a local government intends to use when proposing to
overrule an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Specifically the findings are examined to
determine they are consistent with the purposes of the statutes as set forth in PUC Section 21670.
Section 21670(a) outlines five separate purposes for the legislation as follows:
• "...to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state.."
• "...to provide for the orderly development of...the area surrounding these airports so as to
promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards..."
• "...to provide for the orderly development of ..the area surrounding these airports so
as ... to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems."
• "...to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of
airports...
• "...to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ... the adoption of land use measures
that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas
around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to
incompatible uses."
Simply stated, the findings must show evidence that the city is minimizing the public's exposure
to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports.
"Glvav improves mobJi7 avoss Ca/�mW"
Claire Flynn
November 20, 2007
Page 2
The proposed project is for renovation of the existing Wyndham Hotel property for the
development of a mixed-use project, including a boutique hotel with approximately 200 rooms
and a high-rise residential tower with approximately 120 units, and a parking structure on a 3.0 -
acre parcel located at 3350 Avenue of the Arts. The project is located approximately 6,041 feet
northwest of the Runway 19R approach end at the John Wayne Airport.
Our review of the materials provided indicates the prime issue of inconsistency lies in the
difference between the potential impact of an "obstruction" as opposed to a "hazard to air
navigation" as defined by Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 and determined by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The project applicants have filed and received an FAA
Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, based on FAR Part 77 for the project heights as
amended. The City has ensured that no building permits will be issued unless a valid and current
Determination of No Hazard is produced for each building. In any event, the Airport Environs
Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (amended December 19, 2002) provides the ALUC with
the discretion to utilize criteria which may differ from those contained in FAR Part 77.
We bring attention to the conditions of the FAA No Hazard Determinations, including but not
limited to the requirements that:
"Upon the structure reaching its maximum... height, the sponsor shall submit FAA Form
7460-1 as supplemental information with an attached IA -accuracy as -built certified
survey." and,
"The maximum height... shall include any and all roof -mounted appurtenances, including
but not limited to; obstruction lighting, antennas, signs, parapets, elevator equipment,
window -washing equipment, windsocks, signs, etc., now or in the future. "
It is suggested that the City ensure the project applicant(s) comply with both these and all other
conditions of the FAA's No Hazard Determinations.
The ALUC states in their November 13, 2007, letter to the City of Costa Mesa, the various
additional airport -related information it considered in utilizing criteria differing from FAR Part
77, forming the basis of their inconsistency determination. The ALUC has the benefit of local
knowledge of action flight tracks and aircraft operations around the airport. They also understand
a greater issue affecting the utilization of airports nationwide and that is while an obstruction may
not be a "hazard" to air navigation, it nonetheless may have an affect on the utilization of the
airport and ultimately the national airspace system.
Specific to this point is a research project being conducted by the Transportation Research Board
(TRB), ACRP03-13, entitled "Understanding Airspace, Objects, and Their Effects on Airports."
In its background the TRB states that "[t]he traditional process to evaluate obstructions is
complex and does not necessarily capture the cumulative effect of objects on an airport's
operational airspace. This evaluation is conventionally accomplished through the 14 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 that starts with the filing of a FAA Form 7460-1. While Part
77 provides a straightforward means of identifying obstructions, there are other objects that
could affect the airport's operations but would not be obstructions since they do not penetrate any
of the imaginary surfaces prescribed in Part 77. For example, the controlling obstacle for an
instrument procedure or penetrations to the air carrier one engine inoperative requirement may
'Calvo=L Prom nwbiiyacrwa Cdyomk ,
Clave Flynn
November 20, 2007
Page 3
not be obstructions under Part 77 criteria. The emergence of new navigational technologies and
their associated procedures have further exacerbated this situation.
In an attempt to address this situation, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering
developing new composite surfaces that incorporate multiple existing criteria including that
contained in Part 77 and Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). However, this effort is just
starting.
In the interim, planners and airport sponsors need to better understand the effects of current and
proposed objects on the airport environment. There are a myriad of federal regulations,
requirements, and processes that are used to identify and assess the impacts on an airport's
operations of proposed objects. Research is needed to provide guidance to airport managers and
other stakeholders on applicable criteria and interrelationships between these criteria in order to
help them identify and minimize the effects of development decisions that may adversely impact
on airport operations."
The John Wayne Airport is a vital part of the air transportation system and is an economic asset
with over 350,000 operations and 9.6 million commercial passengers in 2005. The Airport
through agreement is permitted to increase its number of regulated flights through December 31,
2015. The increase in regulated flights allows the number of passengers to increase from a
maximum of 8.4 million to 10.3 million through December 31, 2010, and increasing to 10.8
million on January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2015. The number of cargo flights is also
allowed to increase.
In light of the future increase in commercial and air cargo service at John Wayne Airport, we
commend the efforts of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission in making careful and
reasoned decisions in attempting to ensure compatible land uses in the vicinity of the Airport.
Our review of the City Council Resolution No. 07-73 containing proposed overrule findings is
determined to adequately meet the criteria of the PUC Section 21670. However, it must be
understood that protecting people and property on the ground from the potential consequences of
near -airport aircraft accidents is a fundamental land use compatibility -planning objective. While
the chance of an aircraft injuring someone on the ground is historically quite low, an aircraft
accident is a high consequence event. To protect people and properly on the ground from the
risks of near -airport aircraft accidents, some form of restrictions on land use is essential.
Although the need for compatible and safe land uses near airports in California is both a local and
State issue, airport staff, airport land use commission and airport land use compatibility plans are
key to protecting an airport and the people residing, working and recreating in the vicinity of an
airport. Consideration given to the issue of compatible land uses within an airport's environs
should help to relieve future conflicts between airports and their neighbors.
As a reminder, pursuant to PUC 21676, et seq., the local agency governing body shall include
comments from the Commission and the Division in the final record of any final decision to
overrule the commission.
"Calvary imOrovea mobility aeon Callfomw "
Claire Flynn
November 20, 2007
Page 4
These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Department's Division of Aeronautics. We
appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions, please
do not hesitate to contact us at (916) 654-5216.
Sincerely,
Chris S. Ferrell
cc: Kgemld A. Bresnahan, Orange County Airport Land Use Commission
Alan L. Murphy, John Wayne Airport
..Calwru;mr.moadlo—� C.Ivmu..