Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem P October 1:1, 1999 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Attention: Keith R. Till, City Manager From: Lee Wittenberg, Director of Development Services. Subject: 1999 PROPOSED AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS - ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION SUMMARY OF REQUEST Receive and File Staff Report. Authorize Mayor to sign proposed response letter regarding proposed amendments to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), with any amendments felt appropriate, and instruct staff to forward to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information. DISCUSSION The Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC) of Orange County has prepared proposed amendments to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for 1999. The proposed amendments involve clarification and amplification of various provisions within the document including: ❑ Clarification of avigation easement requirements(Section 3.2.9); ❑ Disclosure of potential noise impacts(Section 3.2.10); and O Non-technical, non-substantive changes. As part of the proposed amendments, the ALUC is proposing toadd new language to the AELUP to define, describe, and depict areas requiring avigation easements and buyer/tenant notification to ensure the compatibility of future land use development around local airports, both civilian and military.- The proposed AELUP amendments will be clarifying the requirement for "Avigation Easements" and "Buyer/Tenant Notification" within proposed Sections 3.2.9 and 3.2.10, for future land use development projects. Informed disclosure, and not land use regulation, is the thrust of the proposed AELUP Amendments, as stated by the ALUC. Agenda Item C:\My Documents\AFRC\1999 AELUP Amendments,CC Staff Report.doc\LW\09-21-99 1999AELUP Amendments—Orange County Airport Land Use Commission City Council StaffReport October 11, 1999 Eventual adoption of the "Disclosure" provision would expand the land use authority of the ALUC, could impose the above-discussed disclosure requirements on both existing and future residential and commercial uses within a large portion of the City, including a major portion of College Park East, substantial residential areas in Los Alamitos, Cypress, Garden Grove and the Rossmoor community, and within the proposed Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project previously found in conformity with the AELUP by this Commission. The cumulative results of this proposed amendment could have a detrimental economic impact on Seal Beach. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendments, and has prepared a comment letter for consideration by the City Council, expressing opposition to the proposed"Disclosure" amendment of the 1999 Revision to the AELUP. Schedule for consideration of 1999 AELUP Amendments The Airport Land Use Commission will consider the proposed 1997 AELUP Amendment for adoption at its regular meeting of October 21, 1999, at 4:00 PM, in the County Hall of Administration,Planning Commission Hearing Room. FISCAL IMPACT Undeter{nined, the-provisions relating to buyer/tenant notification could entail expenses being placed upon the City if those amendments are adopted and the local jurisdiction is responsible for oversight of the proposed buyer/tenant notification provisions. RECOMMENDATION Receive and File Staff Report. Authorize Mayor to sign proposed response letter regarding proposed amendments to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), with any amendments felt appropriate, and instruct staff to forward to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information. NOTED AND APPROVED ee Whittenberg,Director Keith . Till Development Services Departme City Manager 1999 AELUP Amendments,CC Staff Report 2 1999 AELUP Amendments—Orange County Airport Land Use Commission City Council Staff Report October 11, 1999 Attachments: (2) ATTACHMENT 1: Draft Comment Letter re: "Proposed AELUP Amendment for 1999", prepared by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, Agenda Item 1, October 21, 1999 ATTACHMENT 2: Proposed AELUP Amendment for 1999, prepared by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, Agenda Item 1, October 21, 1999 (Complete, 43 pages, including Appendices) 1999 AELUP Amendments,CC Staff Report 3 1999 AELUP Amendments—Orange County Airport Land Use Commission City Council Staff Report October 11, 1999 ATTACHMENT 1 Draft Comment Letter re: "Proposed AELUP Amendment for 1999", prepared by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, Agenda Item 1, October 21, 1999 1999 AELUP Amendments,CC Staff Report 4 4':;,',1;T::kii--i',:.A:ti:-g-;;-,:-.:_,Vizk-:i:''-1-'t4;zi':.'Fz:.:;,-;l'if;":ai:i::Zif,,15:i,;::.5:.;:.:-ttiaSeij.6-f','::,i''viiic..IE:;;--it"::::::;j;.:'4.-.3-.,:lr.?:;?::::F.,;'::,.','::.:'%,':ll''''''''I-'4:-. i;';-.'e,:-,,i._:.::;'- Cx ' iC ` t t w • r f T ,Al t Y n h OT.:,:-.3',,..�.. r V it ? yF y2 F"4ata to { �„ r .''''' a . , ea�x . + f, . xZ f-e. � l-'. . s .:.i rx j ga ` - i c N r�"x`¢ j r a- .<r• K, 1 a s ° ^*{.x `' moi+, a�--E ate' X 7'y :+... 4' .C' • x C i. 41f -.'- o'+ . 'a �,+I rs--w- rsz " t � 2 } .I Fnit f ^k- ,�. "1 y ` l .] '4}rF r�,s fir -'" ' '' Ttk Z d i - � *L ch -1 . � ✓. t "p SC ` +. ��11.Pt l ra�t� 'K�£�e '� ..., :i ..•w^-r- T!'..4. .-:V3 r _ti. ; rn."n2 s ts'• F: '� y'`:• �-ff .av I �} m a� : i..i-aLL.gac' ,..,,i,i),R,,, -.� ..'%.11.k ;E t t cam"ft f,.P «� 0,42,7. 1.;.•,;;,,.--:::r4;•..1. _.t c. ,�z'4, � s, Fc -G< '2 '1Si. ��.. s T ` d" G t` s.,. {' ,�,.:-. � yr -& . ;.."11-:n . itis £ a tt '.- r y fi -t� ,'s•-',;...*'" ,ay. a-',—,1,,, , c"�C,•. ;--.•x s tin.. - "�'7 *�`- e �} � � -1.:1,---•• •,‘,.:� w�:'t:� � ;';" �. -'iC'•:�'fi� �"'`�'-�`� '':..'d�1`.. �°''''s,��-av-`.:'A.�,- . 4'`��`r�,�'3 .E� .,#� ��,'�5.:5: �^a4�-"w .�r`��,�.'. :S�", October 11, 1999 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Attn: Eric Freed, Executive Officer 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mr. Freed SUBJECT: Proposed 1999 AELUP Amendments The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the proposed 1999 amendments to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), and has several questions and concerns regarding the proposed amendments. Until the issues relating to proposed Section 3.2.10, "Disclosure':are resolved and clarified, the City of Seal Beach would oppose the adoption of the proposed "1999 AELUP Amendments". Initially, the City of Seal Beach supports the elimination of earlier proposed amendments to Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.3, and 2.2.4 regarding projects being approved ". . .only after careful study and consensus of all persons concerned with compatible land use planning." This previously proposed language was very vague and would by definition not allow any projects to be approved, because there was no specificity as to what level of "consensus" was necessary and what the universe of "all persons concerned with compatible land use planning" would entail. As has been evidenced in the ongoing controversy regarding MCAS El Toro, there is a lack of consensus among thousands of individuals who are expressing their concerns regarding compatible land use planning issues. The deletion of this previously proposed language restores to the Airport Land Use Commission its rightful authority under Public Utilities Code § 21676, which clearly requires the commission to make a determination of consistency or inconsistency with an adopted AELUP. The following comments reflect concerns of City Council of the City of Seal Beach: 1. Page 2, Section 1.5, Definitions, "Avigation Easement" — This definition of "Avigation Easement" basically restates the definition provided in the "Airport Land Use Planning Handbook", Appendix G, prepared by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics (Caltrans Handbook). In reviewing the language within Chapter 3 C:\My Documents\AFRC\1999 AELUP Amendments.CC Comment Letter.doc LW\10-11-99 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Proposed 1999 AEL UPAmendments October 11, 1999 and Chapter 5 of the Caltrans Handbook,k,:it is apparent that avigation easements are a reasonable and acceptable way of insuring compatibility of adjoining development with an airport operation. It would seem appropriate somewhere within the definition to indicate that the ultimate determination of requiring an avigation easement rests with the local governmental jurisdiction, not the Airport Land Use Commission. The issues to be considered in a local determination of requiring an avigation easement are substantial, and extend far beyond the issue of compatible land uses. The issues of a local concern relate to the appropriate nexus between the physical activity requiring the avigation easement and the exact terms and conditions of the avigation easement. If a provision of the" avigation easement does not have a direct nexus with the physical activity to be resolved, the local jurisdiction may have to consider issues of temporary and permanent"takings". This is vital issue to a local government, and one that needs to be considered very carefully in the Commission both in its deliberations on these amendments and in the review of future projects that come before the Commission for review and recommendation. If the Commission should determine to impose an avigation easement requirement on its own volition during the review on an application to ensure compatibility of land uses, the Commission should include language within the avigation easement that would indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the subject City, and all officers, employees, and agents against all challenges and damages, including attorneys fees relating thereto. 2. Page 3, Section 1.5, Definitions, "New Airport" This definition should be clarified to indicate at what stage in the local agency review and approval process of a new airport the review of the Airport Land Use Commission will occur. It would seem most appropriate to provide a reference to Public Utilities Code § 21676, which clearly specifies the timing of a request for review by the Commission from a local agency. 3. Pages 14-15, Section 2.2.3, Armed Forces Reserve Center, Los Alamitos — The discussion under subsections "CNEL CONTOURS" provides noise information based on a 1987 U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA) and the adopted 1994 AICUZ. In February 1998, Naval Facilities Engineering Command had Wyle Research prepare "Aircraft Noise Study for Los Alamitos Army Airfield, Ca", which is provided as an attachment to this letter. It is requested that this most recent noise information be incorporated into this revision of the AELUP, as it provides the most current and up to date information regarding noise impact zones related to airfield operations at Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center. 4. Page 24, Section 3.2.10, Disclosure — This section requires a disclosure to all initial and subsequent buyers, lessees, and renters within Noise Impact Zone 2, those areas between 60 and 65 dB CNEL. Although not clearly specified, this section appears to apply to new land uses approved subsequent to the adoption of 1999 AELUP Amendments.CC Comment Letter 2 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Proposed 1999 AELUP Amendments October 11, 1999 this new requirement. It would help to clarify that intent, if that is the intent. It is unclear as to the purpose of expanding the authority of the Commission to require this type of ongoing notification. In this regard, the proposed buyer/tenant notification requirements become a major issue. This proposal deserves additional discussion and review to fully understand the future implications, if adopted as proposed. As an example, would an addition to an existing residence within Noise Impact Zone 2 require a buyer/tenant notification? Does the change in ownership of existing developed properties, or a change in tenancy of an existing residential, commercial, or industrial building require the buyer/tenant notification? Is the notification requirement to be administered by the ALUC, local governments, or the owners of rental properties within the disclosure zone? The proposed "disclosure zone" for Los Alamitos AFRC includes substantial existing residential, commercial and industrial areas of Seal Beach and the surrounding communities. Many of these existing residential areas are comprised of single-family residences, many of which may be rental units, in addition to several rental housing developments. Cities typically do not have any knowledge of when the occupants of a residential rental unit changes, and would have no way of providing this type of notification. For owner-occupied properties, the notification could be provided by realtors as part of the property disclosure requirements during the escrow process of a transfer in ownership of a property. Unless these issues are clarified and the responsibility for providing these notices is specified, Seal Beach would oppose this language. It should be noted for the information of the Commission that California Attorney General has opined that "A county recorder may not accept for recordation a document, denominated a "Notice of Disclosure," that gives notice of the proximity of an airport, power lines, and potential traffic and parking problems to specified real property." (82 Op. Atty. Gen. Ca. 107). The Commission should consider the appropriatenessof the proposed "Disclosure" provision, given the inability of any such document to be recorded upon the title of a property. The Commission should carefully weigh the impacts of such a proposal upon the local community's impacted by the proposed "Disclosure" provision, and allow for additional discussion among the interested parties with your staff. As can be seen, our concerns are substantial regarding proposed Section 3.2.10, "Disclosure", and we urge the Commission to not act in haste. We would suggest a series of community workshops, so that the Commission may be fully appraised of the concerns and viewpoints of the many property owners, residents, and cities who would be impacted by the proposed amendments. Until the full import of the proposed amendments are more clearly understood by the City of Seal Beach, we will continue to oppose the imposition of the proposed amendments regarding "Disclosure". The City Council considered this matter on October 11, 1999 and instructed the Mayor to sign this letter, indicating the formal comments of the City of Seal Beach 1999 AELUP Amendments.CC Comment Letter 3 City of Sea!Beach Comment Letter re: Proposed 1999 AELUP Amendments October 11, 1999 regarding the proposed 1999 AELUP Amendment. The City of Seal Beach appreciates your serious consideration of the above stated concerns. Please contact Mr. Keith Till, City Manger, or Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter if you have any questions. Mr. Till can be reached at (562)431-2527, extension 300 and Mr. Whittenberg can be reached at extension 313. Sincerely, Paul Yost Mayor Distribution: City Council Director of Development Services City of Los Alamitos City of Cypress City of Garden Grove City of Stanton City of Anaheim Rossmoor Community Services District Golden Rain Foundation College Park East Neighborhood Association Rossmoor Homeowners Association Attachment: "Aircraft Noise Study for Los Alamitos Army Airfield, CA", prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command by Wyle Research, February 1998 1999 AELUP Amendments.CC Comment Letter 4 1999AELUP Amendments—Orange County Airport Land Use Commission City Council Staff Report October 11, 1999 October 11, 1999 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Attn: Eric Freed, Executive Officer 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mr. Freed CA11.4CC SUBJECT: Proposed 1999 AELUP Amendments The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the proposed 1999 amendments to the,Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), and has several questions and concerns regarding the proposed amendments. Until the issues relating to proposed Section 3.2.10, "Disclosure" are resolved and clarified, the City of Seal Beach would oppose the adoption of the proposed "1999 AELUP Amendments". Initially, the City of Seal Beach supports the elimination of earlier proposed amendments to Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.3, and 2.2.4 regarding projects being approved ". . .only after careful study and consensus of all persons concerned with compatible land use planning." This previously proposed language was very vague and would by definition not allow any projects to be approved, because there was no specificity as to what level of "consensus" was necessary and what the universe of "all persons concerned with compatible land use planning" would entail. As has been evidenced in the ongoing controversy regarding MCAS El Toro, there is a lack of consensus among thousands of individuals who are expressing their concerns regarding compatible land use planning issues. The deletion of this previously proposed language restores to the Airport Land Use Commission its rightful authority under Public Utilities Code § 21676, which clearly requires the commission to make a determination of consistency or inconsistency with an adopted AELUP. The following comments reflect concerns of City Council of the City of Seal Beach: 1999 AELUP Amendments,CC Staff Report 5 1999AELUP Amendments—Orange County Airport Land Use Commission City Council Staff Report October 11, 1999 1. Page 2, Section 1.5, Definitions, "Avigation Easement" - This definition of "Avigation Easement" basically restates the definition provided in the "Airport Land Use Planning Handbook", Appendix G, prepared.by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics (Caltrans Handbook). In reviewing the language within Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 of the Caltrans Handbook, it is apparent that avigation easements are a reasonable and acceptable way of insuring compatibility of adjoining development with an airport operation. It would seem appropriate somewhere within the definition to indicate that the ultimate determination of requiring an avigation easement rests with the local governmental jurisdiction, not the Airport Land Use Commission. The issues to be considered in a local determination of requiring an avigation easement are substantial, and extend far beyond the issue of compatible land uses. The issues of a local concern relate to the appropriate nexus between the physical activity requiring the avigation easement and the.exact terms and conditions of the avigation easement. If a provision of the avigation easement does not have a direct nexus with the physical activity to be resolved, the local jurisdiction may have to consider issues of temporary and permanent "takings". This is vital issue to a local government, and one that needs to be considered very carefully in the Commission both in its deliberations on these amendments and in the review of future projects that come before the Commission for review and recommendation. Pg If the Commission should determine o impose an avigation easement requirement on P its own volition during the review on an application to ensure compatibility of land uses, the Commission should include language within the avigation easement that would indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the subject City, and all officers, employees, and agents against all challenges and damages, including attorneys fees relating thereto. 2. Page 3, Section 1.5, Definitions, "New Airport" - This definition should be clarified to indicate at what stage in the local agency review and approval process of a new airport the review of the Airport Land Use Commission will occur. It would seem most appropriate to provide a reference to Public Utilities Code § 21676, which clearly specifies the timing of a request for review by the Commission from a local agency. 3. Pages 14=15, Section 2.2.3, Armed Forces Reserve Center, Los Alamitos - The discussion under subsections "CNEL CONTOURS" provides noise information based on .a 1987 U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA) and the adopted 1994 AICUZ. In February 1998, Naval Facilities Engineering Command had Wyle Research prepare "Aircraft Noise Study for Los Alamitos Army Airfield, Ca", which is provided as an attachment to this letter. It is requested that this most recent noise information be incorporated into this revision of the AELUP, as it provides the most current and up to date information regarding noise impact zones related to airfield operations at Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center. 1999 AELUP Amendments,CC Staff Report 6 1999 AEL UP Amendments—Orange County Airport Land Use Commission City Council StaffReport October 11, 1999 4. Page 24, Section 3.2.10, Disclosure - This section requires a disclosure to all initial and subsequent buyers, lessees, and renters within Noise Impact Zone 2, those areas between 60 and 65 dB CNEL. Although not clearly specified, this section appears to apply to new land uses approved subsequent to the adoption of this new requirement. It would help to clarify that intent, if that is the intent. It is unclear as to the purpose of expanding the authority of the Commission to require this type of ongoing notification. In this regard, the proposed buyer/tenant notification requirements become a major issue. This proposal deserves additional discussion and review to fully understand the future implications, if adopted as proposed. As an example, would an addition to an existing residence within Noise Impact Zone 2 require a buyer/tenant notification? Does the change in ownership of existing developed properties, or a change in tenancy of an existing residential, commercial, or industrial building require the buyer/tenant notification? Is the notification requirement to be administered by the ALUC, local governments, or the owners of rental properties within the disclosure zone? DRAFT The proposed "disclosure zone" for Los Alamitos AFRC includes substantial existing residential, commercial and industrial areas of Seal Beach and the surrounding communities. Many of these existing residential areas are comprised of single-family residences, many of which may be rental units, in addition to several rental housing developments. Cities typically do not have any knowledge of when the occupants of a residential rental unit changes, and would have no way of providing this type of notification. For owner-occupied properties, the notification could be provided by realtors as part of the property disclosure requirements during the escrow process of a transfer in ownership of a property. Unless these issues are clarified and the responsibility for providing these notices is specified, Seal Beach would oppose this language. It should be noted for the information of the Commission that California Attorney General has opined that "A county recorder may not accept for recordation a document, denominated a "Notice of Disclosure," that gives notice of the proximity of an airport, power lines, and potential traffic and parking problems to specified real • property." (82 Op. Atty. Gen. Ca. 107). The Commission should consider the appropriateness of the proposed "Disclosure" provision, given the inability of any such document to be recorded upon the title of a property. The Commission should carefully weigh the impacts of such a proposal upon the local community's impacted by the proposed "Disclosure" provision, and allow for additional discussion among the interested parties with your staff. As can be seen, our concerns are substantial regarding proposed Section 3.2.10, "Disclosure", and we urge the Commission to not act in haste. We would suggest a series of community workshops, so that the Commission may be fully appraised of the concerns and 1999 AELUP Amendments,CC Staff Report 7 1 1999 AELUP Amendments—Orange County Airport Land Use Commission City Council Staff Report October 11, 1999 viewpoints of the many property owners, residents, and cities who would be impacted by the proposed amendments. Until the full import of the proposed amendments are more clearly understood by the City of Seal Beach, we will continue to oppose the imposition of the proposed amendments regarding "Disclosure". The City Council considered this matter on October 11, 1999 and instructed the Mayor to sign this letter, indicating the formal comments of the City of Seal Beach regarding the proposed 1999 AELUP Amendment. The City of Seal Beach appreciates your serious consideration of the above stated concerns. Please contact Mr. Keith Till, City Manger, or Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter if you have any questions. Mr. Till can be reached at (562) 431-2527, extension 300 and Mr. Whittenberg can be reached at extension 313. Sincerely, IS?4:F� Paul Yost Mayor Distribution: City Council Director of Development Services City of Los Alamitos City of Cypress City of Garden Grove City of Stanton City of Anaheim Rossmoor Community Services District Golden Rain Foundation College Park East Neighborhood Association Rossmoor Homeowners Association Attachment: "Aircraft Noise Study for Los Alamitos Army Airfield, CA", prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command by Wyle Research, February 1998 1999 AELUP Amendments,CC Staff Report 8 1999 AELUP Amendments—Orange County Airport Land Use Commission City Council StaffReport October 11, 1999 ATTACHMENT 2 Proposed AELUP Amendment for 1999, prepared by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, Agenda Item 1, October 21, 1999 (Complete, 43 pages, including appendices) 1999 AELUP Amendments,CC Staff Report 9 Airport Land Use Commission ORANGE COUNTY LiCww AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope 1 1.2 Authority 1 1.3 Requirements 1 1.4 Concept of the Planning Document 1 1.5 Definitions 2 SECTION 2.0 - PLANNING GUIDELINES 5 2.1 Standards and Criteria 5 2.1.1 Aircraft Noise 5 2.1.2 Accident Potential Zones (Military Airports) 6 2.1.3 Accident Potential Zones (Civilian Airports) 7 2.1.4 Building Height Restrictions 7 2.1.5 Air Transportation 9 2.1.6 Airports/I eliports/Helistops 9 2.1.7 Planning Areas - Airports 10 2.1.8 Planning Areas - Heliports 11 2.1.9 Planning Areas - Proposed Airports 11 2.2 Establishment of Planning Areas 11 2.2.1 Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro 11 2.2.2 Marine Corps Air Station (Helicopter), Tustin 13 2.2.3 Armed Forces Reserve Center, Los Alamitos 14 2.2.4 John Wayne Airport, Orange County 16 2.2.5 Fullerton Municipal Airport 18 - i - Page Section 3.0 - LAND USE GUIDELINES 20 3.1 Concept 20 3.2 Land Use Guidelines (Policy) Policies 20 3.2.1 General Guidelines Policy 20 3.2.2 Specific Guidelines Policies 21 3.2.3 Noise Impact Zone "1", High Noise Impact 22 3.2.4 Noise Impact Zone "2", Moderate Noise Impact 22 3.2.5 Clear Zone "CZ", Extreme Crash Hazard 23 3.2.6 Accident Potential Zone "I", Considerable Crash Hazard 23 3.2.7 Accident Potential Zone "II", Limited Crash Hazard 23 3.2.8 Height Restriction Zone 24 3.2.9 Avigation Easements 24 3.2.10 Disclosure 24 3.2.11 Airspace/Airport Inconsistency 24 Section 4.0 - IMPLEMENTATION 26 4.1 Statutes 26 4.2 General and Specific Plans 26 4.3 Amendments to General and Specific Plans 26 4.4 Zoning Ordinances and Building Regulations 26 4.5 Airport Master Plans 26 4.6 Other Submittals 27 4.7 Acceptance of Submittal 27 4.8 Who May File 27 4.9 Commission Finding of Inconsistency 27 4.10 Continuous Monitoring 28 4.11 Periodic Review 28 4.12 AELUP Amendments 28 - ii - SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope This land use plan intends, for the twenty year planning future of the existing airports within Orange County (see Figure 1), to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinities of airports and to ensure the continued operation of the airports. Specifically, the plan seeks to protect the public,from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. The implementation of this plan will forestall urban encroachment on airports and will allow for their continued operation. 1.2 Authority Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California requires the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County to formulate a comprehensive land use plan for the area surrounding each public airport within Orange County. The Commission may formulate a plan for the area surrounding any federal military airport. 1.3 Requirements Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California specifies that the comprehensive land use plans will: "(a) . . . provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The commission plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan or an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics [Program] of the Department of Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years. In formulating a land use plan, the commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and determine building standards, including soundproofing adjacent to airports, within the planning area. The comprehensive land use plan shall be reviewed as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purposes, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year. (see Appendix A) (b) The Commission may include, within its plan formulated pursuant to subdivision (a), the area within the jurisdiction of the commission surrounding any federal military airport for all of the purposes specified in subdivision (a) . . .e" 1.4 Concept of the Planning Document This document has been designed to reflect a uniform approach to planning for individual airports. Noise and safety impacts and crash hazard areas have been identified for each airport by using similar standards and criteria except where the size of an airport or type of aircraft operations dictated otherwise. All building height restrictions will have as their ultimate limits the imaginary surfaces as applicable and as defined in Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. When a project is proposed by any agency, which exceeds the height limits established by FAR Part 77, a�]i determination will be made by the Commission on a case by case basis. - - 1 - • Land use guidelines have been established on the bases of noise and safety impacts on the welfare of the public, and on the building height and activity impacts upon the continued operation of the airport. Much of this document is intended to validate and to legitimize those guidelines and the planning boundaries. The concepts and processes presented below illustrate the Commission's efforts to ensure that land use guidelines were determined only by the most incontrovertible methods. 1.5 Definitions AELUP - Airport Environs Land Use Plan. AERONAUTICAL The technical analysis performed:by the FAA pursuant to the filing of STUDY Form 7460=1 "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" by a project proponent. AICUZ - Air Installations Compatible Use Zones: a Federal Department of Defense program to identify incompatible land uses around military airports. AIRPORT - Any public or military airport, airstation, or air facility within Orange County, California. AIRSPACE - The technical analysis performed by the FAA pursuant to the filing of ANALYSIS Form 7480-1 "Notice. of Landing Area Proposal" by a project proponent. APZ - Accident Potential Zones: Zones established around airports based on accident histories and operational characteristics. AVIGATION Avigation easement is generally defined,by the Caltrans Aeronautics EASEMENT . Program as: "A type of easement which typically conveys the following rights: a right-of-way for free and unobstructed passage of aircraft through the airspace over the property at any altitude above a surface specified in th- easement...a right to subject.the property to noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, and fuel particle emissions associated with normal airport activity; a right to prohibit the erection or growth of any structure, tree, or other object that would enter the acquired airspace; a right-of-entry onto the property with proper advance notice for the purpose of removing, marking, or lighting any structure or other object that enters the acquired airspace; a right to prohibi electrical,interference, glare, misleading lights, visual impairments, and,other hazards to aircraft flight from being created on the property." (Caltrans Division of.Aeronautics Airport Land Use Planning Handbook; Appendix G. p. G-3). Sample Avigation Easements are included in Appendix J. CNEL - The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the energy average noise level measured in A-level for a 24-hour period, with different weighting factors for the hourly noise levels occurring during the daytime (0700 to 1900, 0 dB weighting), evening (1900 to 2200, 5 dB weighting), and nighttime (2200 to 0700, 10 dB weighting) periods. COMMISSION - The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. - 2 - dB(A) - A-Weighted sound pressure level or A-level is the sound pressure level which has been filtered or weighted to quantitatively reduce the effect of the low frequency noise. It was designed to approximate the response of the human ear to sound. A-level is measured in units of decibels. FAA - Federal Aviation Administration. FAR - Federal Aviation Regulations. FREE-STANDING - A building which does not share a common wall BUILDING with another building. HABITABLE ROOM- Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code or other applicable regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms and similar spaces. HELIPORT - An identifiable area on land or water, including any building or facilities thereon, used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters. Does not include temporary landing and takeoff sites. Refueling and overnight maintenance are permitted. HELISTOP - An identifiable area on land or water, including any building or facilities thereon, used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters. Does not include temporary landing and takeoff sites. Refueling and overnight maintenance are not permitted. LOCAL AGENCY - The County of Orange, or any City within it. NEW AIRPORT - Any new public airport that is proposed to be constructed and operated by a local agency such as boards of supervisors, city councils, or other duly constituted authority. OPERATION - Any single landing or approach performed by an aircraft. Also any single take-off or departure constitutes an operation. OUTDOOR - Spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used LIVING AREA for passive recreational activities or other noise-sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, jacuzzi areas, etc. associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting are as associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of worship which have a significant role in services or other noise-sensitive activities; and outdoor school facilities routinely used for educational purposes - 3 - which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor areas usually no included- in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, maintenance areas, and storage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used fo patient activities; outdoor areasassociated with places of worship and principally used for short-term social gatherings. PLANNING AREA - ' blic Utilities Code-Section 21675(c)require, that area surrounding any airport which affects, or is affected by, aircraft operations and white be embraced by the boundaries of this plan. It sets limits o the area within which proposed land use projects are to be referreI to the. ALUC for review. With certain exceptions, planning are. boundaries are determined by the location-and.configuration of the airports included in'the plan, and the extent of the noise and safet) impacts associated with each airport. POLICY - A term used by the County of Orange regardin& MCAS, El Toro - IMPLEMENTATION A line adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in LINE 1979 which corresponds to the location of the 65-decibel CNEL contour projected for MCAS, El Toro based on a total of 72,000 annual operations. This line is reflected in the 1981 MCAS, El Toro AICUZ Study; and John Wayne Airport - A line adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in 1985 which corresponds to the location of the 65-decibel CNEL contour for John Wayne Airport. This line is based on the highest noise level at a given location utilizing noise projections from both the 1990 and 2005 project case contours developed as part of the John Wayne Airport Master Plan. (See Section 2.2.4) RUNWAY - An area off the end of a runway used to enhance the protection of PROTECTION people and property on the ground. ZONE (CLEAR ZONE) SINGLE EVENT - In decibels, shall mean the sound exposure level of a single event, NOISE EXPOSURE such as an aircraft fly-by, measured over the time interval between LEVEL (SENEL) the initial and final times for which the sound level of a single even exceeds the threshold sound level. SENEL is an A-weighted measure of an individual flyover, which time-integrates the level accumulated during this event with reference to a duration-of one second. Because of thisintegration process, SENEL takes into consideration both the duration and the magnitude of the noise signal. SENEL is a special case of SEL in that the computation is made for those noise signals which exceed a certain level. - 4 - SECTION 2.0 - PLANNING GUIDELINES Guidelines for airport land use planning are not have bee set down in any a variety o cohesive OF approaches and systematic form0. No civil:^., or Civilian and military authorityas authorities have established regulations or statutes which specify -a-methodology numerous methodologies for mitigating the incompatibilities between an airport and its environs, nor have and such incompatibilities have been adequately defined. • . : ••• . . . . _ - . - • - Public Utilities Cod 1 - -• • • •• g • - • . f . i• • • -• guidance while directing the Commission to provide "for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport," and to "safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general." Toward these ends, ew Sections 21675 and 21674 further enable the Commission to "develop height restrictions on buildings", to specify the "use of land", to determine "building standards, including sound-proofing"; and to "assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of all new airports and 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." The Commission is also empowered 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." - . - - , . . _ . . • ' : - . . . . - . . - ' . .' . . -, . • . . The California Department of Transportation Airport Land Use Planning Handbook . •- -- •• -- - _ - - - .. • . . -- . _ • - - . . • ' . • provides further guidelines. In the formulation and amendment of this plan, the Commission has made every effort to study and to evaluate all available viewpoints regarding airport land use planning. • . - - - • - • • - first revised AELUP. 2.1 Standards and Criteria The following sections describe the standards and criteria adopted by the Commission for establishing planning boundaries and the reasoning of the Commission in choosing them. 2.1.1 Aircraft Noise In adopting the Community Noise Equivalent Level Methodology, Resolution No. 75-1 of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County states that: " . . . aircraft noise emanating from airports may be incompatible with the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of an airport and in order to measure the impact of aircraft noise on inhabitants within the vicinity of an airport, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County adopts the Community Noise Equivalent Level Methodology as specified in the Noise Standards for California Airports (Title 21, California Code of Regulations)." - 5 - In its deliberations, the Commission investigated other aircraft noise description systems including Composite Noise Rating, Noise Exposure Forecast, Noise and Number Index, and Aircraft Sound Description System. The Commission discussed at length the variability of aircraft noise due to atmospheric conditions and aircraft operations and the inability of any sound measurement system to provide a completely accurate noise description at all times. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) system was adopted by the Commission because for the following reasons: (1) The system is set forth in the State Code of Regulations (Title 21, Californi. Code of Regulations) and therefore is imbued with legal authority; and (2) The Noise Insulation Standards in the State Housing Law (Title 25, California Code of Regulations) specify the use of the CNEL system to describe intrusive noise levels and prescribe soundproofing; and (3) The CNEL system most accurately describes those noise levels prescribed in the Noise Element of the Orange County General Plan. The 60 dB CNEL contour line was chosen as a Planning Boundary by the Commission because for the following reasons: (1) This level is prescribed in the California Noise Insulation Standards as the criterion for enforcing the use of sound insulation; and (2) The flexible nature of a CNEL contour requires that some leeway from the 65 dB level, prescribed in the Noise Standards for California Airports, be created in order to protect inhabitants of the airport environs from noise. The CNEL methodology has been adopted for, and applies to, all airports in Orange County, both civilian and military. 2.1.2 Accident Potential Zones (Military Airports) Upon the completion of an AICUZ and its approval by the Department of Defense, the Commission will consider si it • .• • • •• . • •• • • • . . • as a source o data as a part of a regular amendment process. While the Commission accepts the AICUZ results as the basis for defining Accident Potential Zones (APZs), particular results of an AICUZ may not be relevant based on characteristics unique to each air installation. In adopting the Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Methodology, Resolution No. 75-1 of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County states that: . . . the potentiality of aircraft accidents outside the boundary of an airport may be incompatible with the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of an airport and that in order to designate such Accident Potential Zones (APZs) near military airports, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County - 6 - adopts the Department of the Navy, Aircraft Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Program Methodology." The Commission investigated other methodologies for designating accident potential zones including those set forth in the Environmental Protection Agency's Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Report, the Doolittle Report (The Airport and Its Neighbors), the AICUZ study report for Hill Air Force Base, Utah, and others. The Commission discussed at length the difficulties involved in relating aircraft operations to accident locations. The Commission adopted the AICUZ methodology as presented in the memorandum of the Secretary of the Navy to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Housing and Installations because: (1) the system was based on a study of accidents involving the types of aircraft used at the military airports within Orange County; (2) the Accident Potential Zones (APZs) designated by this methodology appear to be the least restrictive or arbitrary of all those considered; and (3) this method will promote consistency between civilian and military planning. Justification for designating accident potential zones around military airports is detailed in Section 2.2. 2.1.3 Accident Potential Zones (Civilian Airports) In adopting criteria for Accident Potential Zones at civilian airports, Resolution No. 75-3 of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County states that: . . . the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County shall designate accident potential zones around civil airports on the basis of study and evaluation of each airport's accident history and operational characteristics." Instead of adopting one methodology to be applied to all civilian airports, the Commission decided to study each airport individually. In the past, the Commission has evaluated data from all airport accidents occurring within California and at each civilian airport in the County; and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to identify crash hazard zones which were applicable to all airports. Periodic reviews of accident patterns will be undertaken by the Commission as new data and methodologies become available. Justification for designating accident potential zones around civilian airports is detailed in Section 2.2. 2.1.4 Building Height Restrictions In adopting criteria for building height restrictions in the vicinities of airports, the Commission considered only one standard and that was Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 (FAR Part 77) entitled, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace." These regulations are the only definitive standard available and the standard most generally used. - 7 - In order to ensure that buildings which might affect the continued operations of airports are not built in their vicinities, the Commission has incorporated the standards for determining obstructions and FAR Part 77 definitions, of the "imaginary surfaces" for airports, as the guidelines for height limits. The "imaginary surfaces" are defined by means of elevations, heights and slopes in relation to individual airports, the spaces above which are reserved to air navigation. In addition to the "imaginary surfaces", the Commission will use all of the FAR Part 77.23 standards along with the results of FAA aeronautical studies, or other studies deemed necessary by the Commission, in order to determine if a structure is an "obstruction." Building or structural heights are limited to the distance between the ground elevation of the site and an elevation that has been determined will not adversely effect an airport or aeronautical operations, nor navigational-aid siting criteria, including interference with navigational-aids or published flight paths and procedures. The Commission may consider the adoption of 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. Commission review of individual cases will be guided by FAR Part 77, and by FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/5190-4, as published on August 23, 1977 and entitled "A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects Around Airports" (Appendix F). This document has been promulgated by the FAA expressly to guide local agencies in the preparation of specialized zoning regulations, and in the conduct of individual case reviews. The Advisory Circular will complement FAR Part 77, and together they will provide an overall means to protect the navigable airspace at our local airports. The results of an aeronautical study conducted by the FAA pursuant to FAR Part 77.13 will be utilized to determine if a structure will have an adverse effect on airport or on aeronautical operations. The Commission considers and recognizes the 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 Commission also considers the FAA as the "Authority" for reporting the results of such studies and project analyses. The Commission will not consider the findings of reports or aerenautieal studies conducted by parties other than the FAA unless the FAA certifies and adopts such findings as true and correct. In those portions of the height restriction planning areas that lie outside of the Clear or Accident Potential Zones and 60 dB CNEL Contours, or other areas of special concern as delineated by the FAA and adopted by the'Commission, local agencies are required to submit only those matters which contemplate structures that would penetrate the imaginary surfaces as defined in FAR Part 77.13, 77.25, or 77.28 which have been designated for each individual airport for height restriction referral. vever- prejects - 8 - 2.1.5 Air Transportation The Commission is charged 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. The preparation and dissemination of the AELUP are themselves important long-term steps in fulfilling this duty. In addition, the Commission will strive to serve as a local clearing house, among all affected agencies, for the distribution of current information regarding the state of aviation and airport systems; and of the trends in land use which affect, and are affected by, them. This includes the expansion of existing public use airports and the development of new airports or airport site selection studies. 2.1.6 Ai •ort Heli orts/Helistoas The Commission is charged with reviewing and commenting actino on proposed airpor n. - . . , -. 6. e •re a •,. sr t . ,s . . , • re r *es . i-w :re . .., heliports within its jurisdiction and with making recommendations directly to the California Department of Transportation/Aeronautics Program, regarding the required state license airport/heliport permi under Section 21661.5 o the California Public Utilities Code. Heliports/helistops to be located at an existing airport do not require Commission review. The Commission review of proposed projects for airports/I eliports/helistops is initiated by the local agency's referral of the proponent's request for a development permit to construct and operate a an airport/I eliport/helistop. A finding by the Commission regarding consistency of the proposed project with this plan will be forwarded to the local jurisdiction for their consideration. The information needed for review of the proposed airport/I eliport/helistop by the Commission includes the following: 1. Location of the proposed airport/I eliport/helistop (street address). 2. Purpose of request: Personal, private, or commercial use of airport/I eliport/ helistop. 3. Zoning of site. 4. Description of area and adjoining properties. 5. Approach/departure paths. 6. Anticipated number of approaches and departures (counted separately) during a specified time interval (day, week, month). 7. Potential for creating a nuisance due to noise generated by the operation of fixed- wing aircraft and helicopters (Noise Study may be required). 8. Potential for creating an accident hazard (Accident Probability Study may b: required). - 9 - 9. Federal Aviation Administration Airspace Analysis. 10. Type of craft proposed to be used and noise output of craft. 11. Description of proposed operations/facilities (maintenance, refueling, etc.) 2.1.7 Planning Areas - Airports Specific Planning Areas for each Airport shall be designated in Section 2.2. (See also Figure 1). The Commission evaluated the factors germane to its mandated duties and decided that the Planning Areas shall be based on the following criteria: 1. Areas that are within the 60 dB CNEL contour, as specified for each individual Airport in Section 2.2 of the AELUP. 2. Areas that are within the Clear or Accident Potential Zones, as specified for each individual Airport in Section 2.2 of the AELUP. 3. Areas subject to building height restrictions, as specified for each individual Airport in Section 2.2 of the AELUP. 4. In addition to the criteria listed above in items 1- , the entire County shall be deemed within the Commission's Planning area for development proposals (as defined in PUC Section 21676(b) which are: a. Germane to air transportation i.e., sites of developments whose proposed populations are so large as to have an effect on air transportation. b. Outside the height restriction planning area specified for each individual airport in Section 2.2 of the AELUP, but which are planned to be built to a height of et4east more tha 200 feet above ground level, and which in the opinion of the local agency, the FAA, or the Commission, pose an adverse aeronautical effect, as generally defined in AELUP Section 3.2.1, must be submitted to the Commission. c. Within 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway at John Wayne Airport, MCAS El Toro or AFRC Los Alamitos, or within 10,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of MCAS Tustin or Fullerton Municipal Airport, which in the opinion of the local agency, the FAA, or the Commission would interfere with visual or electronic navigation systems or would threaten the operation of an airport or decrease its utility, by producing or causing excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, electronic interference, or by attracting birds, must be submitted to the Commission. In those portions of the planning areas that lie outside of the Clear or Accident Potential Zones and 60 dB CNEL Contours or other areas of special concern as specified in Items 4a®, 4b 5b, or 4e®, local agencies are required to submit only those matters which contemplate or permit structures that would penetrate the imaginary surfaces as defined - 10 - in FAR Part 77.13, 77.25, or 77.28 which have been designated for each individual airport for height restriction referral. ' - - • • •- ' - - • • A local jurisdiction's legislative acts (general plan or specific pla amendments, zone changes, etc, zoning ordinances or building regulations and airport plans) shal i be referred to the Commission pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b). 2.1.8 Planning Areas - Heliports Upon appropriate occasions, the Commission may adopt specific planning areas for individual heliports. Furthermore, all proposals to develop new heliports must be submitted to the Commission for review and comment action pursuant to P.U.C. Section 21661.5 (AELUP Section 2.1. . 2.1.9 Planning Areas - Proposed Airports Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5 states that no application for the construction of a ne airport may be submitted to any local, regional,state, or federal agency unless that plan has been both: 1. Approved by the board of supervisors of the county, or the city council of the city i which the airport is to be located; and 2. Submitted to and acted upon by the Commission. During the process by the local land use authority and the FAA to certify/approve an EIR/EIS and a Master Plan for the development of a new airport, the Commission shall review the EIR/EIS and Master Plan for consistency with, and possible future inclusion in, Section 2.2 of the AELUP. The Commission will adopt the projected noise contours presented in the EIR/EIS based on the selected elate alternative runway alignment and future operational projections. Likewise, the Commission will adopt the FAR Part 77 - height restriction criteria based on the selected alternative. These will form the basis for the planning area for Commission referral until revised data can be generated based on an evaluation of actual operations. Accident Potential and Clear Zones will also be considered for possible establishment of a planning area if called for as a mitigation in the EIR/EIS. Other factors such as light and glare or smoke will also be considered if called for in the EIR/EIS. 2.2 Establishment of Planning Areas In adopting the various standards and criteria, the Commission applied several appropriate systems and methodologies to the individual airports. The following sections detail considerations of the Commission in fixing the particular contours and boundaries around each airport. 2.2.1 Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro The original plan adopted on April 17, 1975, has been amended four times: on June 16, 1977, on December 20, 1979, on December 20, 1984, and again on August 15, 1985. - 11 - CNEL CONTOURS - The Commission used the CNEL contours depicted au® the 1979 Aircraft Engineering Support Office (AESO) noise study for Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), El Toro; and adopted by the Board of Supervisors, County of Orange, on October 10, 1979, as Resolution 79-1504 (Exhibit 3 of Appendix D). These contours were developed on the basis of 1976 through 1979 operations data and the latest available information concerning the noise characteristics of military aircraft operations from MCAS, El Toro, as well as those military aircraft expected to be operating from the air station during the next twenty years. CLEAR AND ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES - An analysis of the sixteen year accident history and the operational characteristics of MCAS, El Toro, was conducted in accordance with the adopted AICUZ methodology, as updated by the 1981 MCAS El Toro AICUZ study. No Clear Zone "CZ" was placed at the end of Runway 3/21 because it is not presently in use nor are there any plans for its future use as a jet runway. The AICUZ methodology was strictly observed on all other runways. The amendments of December 20, 1984, and August 15, 1985, noted above have altered the location, size, and applicable land use guidelines of the adopted Clear and Accident Potential Zones. MCAS El Toro Clear and Accident Potential Zones are reflected-en® Exdlibit--3-ef Appendix D. BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS - The Commission, by reference, has adopted Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, of the Federal Aviation Regulations as a guideline to describe the ultimate height of structures under the "imaginary surfaces" as defined in FAR Part 77. Structures should not exceed the elevations defined in FAR Part 77.25 unless, upon completion of an aeronautical analysis conducted by the FAA pursuant to FAR Part 77.13, the Commission finds that they "will be consistent with the Guidelines of Section 3.2 of the AELUP. In addition to the "imaginary surfaces", the Commission will use all of the FAR Part 77.23 standards for determining if a structure is an "obstruction". Structural height is limited to the distance between the ground elevation of the site and an elevation which the FAA has determined will not adversely affect this airport or its aeronautical operations, including interference with navigational- aids or published flight paths and procedures. The Commission recognizes that due to the steep terrain east of MCAS El Toro, the air base maintains a 30:1 approach/ departure surface rather than the 50:1 surface under a waiver from the D.O.D. This waiver applies to military aircraft only. As a result of this fact it is important for the FAA to be notified for almost all development east of the station. Furthermore, due to the waiver, the intervening steep terrain needs to be considered in evaluating Project impacts on airport and aeronautical operations. The Commission may consider the adoption of criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at this airport 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. The Commission 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 gg airport or aeronautical operations. - 12 - To this end, the Commission has considered and adopted the "FMLP Protective Surface" promulgated in the 1981 MCAS El Toro AICUZ Study and described below. To supplement FAR Part 77 imaginary surface criteria, a second set of height restrictions • was developed to establish safe clearances required for aircraft carrier landing practice flight patterns flown to Runway 34L. Safe clearances are suggested, which provide a minimum of 495 feet of separation between aircraft in the pattern and the tops of proposed buildings. This is accomplished by limiting building heights to 405 feet above mean sea level in the circular arc area extending out to 3,000 feet beyond the flight track centerline. Furthermore, within this area, if FAR Part 77 criteria are lower, then those lower criteria will be utilized. PLANNING AREA - The Commission has adopted and defined as its Planning Area for MCAS El Toro, all area within the 60 dB CNEL Contour, all area within the Clear and Accident Potential Zones, and all area that lies above or penetrates the 100:1 imaginary surface as defined in FAR Part 77.13. Outside,of the Clear and Accidental Potential Zones and 60 dB CNEL Contours, or other areas of special concern as delineated by the FAA and adopted by the Commission, local agencies are required to submit only those matters which contemplate or permit structures that would penetrate the 100:1 imaginary surface for notice to the FAA as defined in FAR Part 77.13. owever, projects whic (see Section 2.1.7.1.c.). TWENTY YEAR FUTURE - Statements by Marine Corps representatives indicate that the noise contours, generated by the anticipated level of operations at MCAS, El Toro, are expected to remain relatively constant. The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1993 facilitates continued operation of MCAS, El Toro until July 1999. Use of the Base beyond 1999 is uncertain, but a civilian airport has been proposed and i• currently being planned by the County of Orange, the federally designated Loca Redevelopment Agency for Base closur:. ' - 2.2.2 Marine Corps Air Station (Helicopter), Tustin CNEL CONTOURS - The Commission has not adopted a set of CNEL contours for this airport as the operations from this base have not generated off-airport 65 dB CNEL contours. ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES - The Commission has not adopted Accident Potential Zones for this airport because none could be justified with the available data. BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS - The Commission, by reference, has adopted Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, of the Federal Aviation Regulations as a guideline to describe the ultimate height of structures under the "imaginary surfaces" as defined in FAR Part 77. Structures should not exceed the elevations defined in FAR Part 77.25 unless, upon completion of an aeronautical analysis conducted by the FAA 1 The Commission will rely on the current AICUZ Study until the AICUZ Study is amended and/or a new use is established. - 13 - pursuant to FAR Part 77.13, the Commission finds that they will be consistent with the Guidelines of Section 3.2 of the AELUP. In addition to the "imaginary surfaces", the Commission will use all of the FAR Part 77.23 standards for determining if a structure is an "obstruction". Structural height is limited to the distance between the ground elevation of the site and an elevation which the FAA has determined will not adversely affect this airport or its aeronautical operations, including interference with navigational- aids or published flight paths and procedures. The Commission may consider the adoption of criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at this airport 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. The Commission 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 airport or aeronautical operations. PLANNING AREA - The Commission has adopted and defined as its Planning Area for MCAS Tustin, all area that lies above or penetrates the "imaginary surfaces" as defined in FAR Part 77. Local agencies are required to submit only those matters which contemplate or permit structures that would penetrate the "imaginary surfaces" as defined in FAR Part 77.28. - , - - , . :•• .. •, •• •- . .•••- . •• . • •_ • , . • the nearest point of the runway (see Section 2.1.7.4.c.). TWENTY YEAR FUTURE - The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1993 facilitates continued operation of MCAS (H), Tustin until 1999. Use of the Base beyond 1999 is uncertain, but non-aviation civilian uses are propose..2 2.2.3 Armed Forces Reserve Center, Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC), Los Alamitos, was formerly called Naval Air Station, Los Alamitos. CNEL CONTOURS - The Commission used the CNEL contours depicted in the June 1, 1994 Final AICUZ Study for AFRC, Los Alamitos (€��of Appendix D). These contours are based on a 1987 determination made by the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA) using NOISEMAP 3.4 computer software. The NOISEMAP program was developed for the U.S. Air Force by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman in 1978. The USAEHA computer model uses an estimate of 55,000 annual aircraft operations based on current and projected airfield operations under non- emergency conditions. In addition, noise characteristics of both rotary and fixed wing aircraft types operating at the airfield were considered in developing the noise contours. 2 The Commission will rely on the current AICUZ Study until the AICUZ Study is amended and/or a new use is established. - 14 - In 1995 the Commission sought additional AICUZ data for augmenting the AELUP noise impact zone map to depict the outer boundary of Noise Impact Zone 2 (60 dB CNEL Contour Line), which surrounds AFRC Los Alamitos. No relevant data being available from the AICUZ program, the Commission estimated the 60 dB CNEL Contour Line, by extrapolating from the adopted 65 dB Contour Line, using a logarithmic scaling method and professional acoustical-engineering judgment. CLEAR ZONES - The Commission used the Clear Zones depicted in the June 1, 1994 Final AICUZ Study (Exhibit 4a and 4b of Appendix D). This study identifies Clear Zones that are located entirely within the boundaries of AFRC, Los Alamitos; and - - � • . - • - l' 8 - . - n . ts- : • sy . 0 .- .' s any off-base accident potential zones. The 1994 AICUZ Study uses Air Force criteria for determining accident potential and clear zones at AFRC, Los Alamitos. U.S. Air Force Instruction 32-7063 authorizes exemption from standard Clear Zone criteria when there are less than ten (10)jet-axd.M" twenty-five (25) propeller-driven aircraft operations on a runway on an average busy day. Current and projected airfield operations at AFRC, Los Alamitos are consistent with this criteria. Prior to the 1994 AICUZ Study, the Commission used an analysis of the ten year accident history and the operational characteristics of the AFRC, Los Alamitos which revealed that only an Accident Potential Zone "A"3 located within the boundaries of AFRC, Los Alamitos was justified. This analysis was conducted in accordance with the adopted AICUZ methodology. BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS - The Commission, by reference, has adopted Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, of the Federal Aviation Regulations as a guideline to describe the ultimate height of structures under the "imaginary surfaces" as defined in FAR Part 77. Structures should not exceed the elevations defined in FAR Part 77.25 unless, upon completion of an aeronautical analysis conducted by the FAA pursuant to FAR Part 77.13, the Commission finds that they will be consistent with the Guidelines of Section 3.2 of the AELUP. In addition to the "imaginary surfaces", the Commission will use all of the FAR Part 77.23 standards for determining if a structure is an "obstruction". Structural height is limited to the distance between the ground elevation of the site and an elevation which the FAA has determined will not adversely affect this airport or its aeronautical operations, including interference with navigational- aids or published flight paths and procedures. The Commission may consider the adoption of criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at this airport 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. The Commission 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 82 airport or aeronautical operations. 3 APZ "A" is now designated as "CZ" Clear Zone or "RPZ" Runway Protection Zone. - 15 - • The Commission is aware that buildings that rise to the height of the Horizontal Surface (150 feet AGL) will violate the established approach criteria for the primary runway at the AFRC. Therefore, it is necessary to protect all other FAA standards such as the Terminal Procedures (TERPS). Structural height is limited to the distance between the ground elevation of the site and an elevation that, upon completion of an aeronautical his Study conducted by the FAA pursuant to FAR Part 77.13, the Commission finds will be consistent with the Guidelines of Section 3.2 of the AELUP. PLANNING AREA - The Commission has adopted and defined as its Planning Area for AFRC, Los Alamitos all area within the 60 dB CNEL Contour and all area that lies above or penetrates the 100:1 imaginary surface as defined in FAR Part 77.13. Outside of the 60 dB CNEL Contour, or other areas of special concern as delineated by the FAA and adopted by the Commission, local agencies are required to submit only those matters which contemplate or permit structures that would penetrate the 100:1 imaginary surface for notice to the FAA as defined in FAR Part 77.13. However, pr tc whic, (see Section 2.1.7.4.c.). TWENTY YEAR FUTURE - The Commission assumes that the AFRC will continue to operate at its present level of operations for at least the next twenty years. 2.2.4 John Wayne Airport, Orange County John Wayne Airport, Orange County, was formerly called Orange County Airport. CNEL CONTOURS - Formerly, The Commission utilized those contours developed by Wyle Laboratories in February 1975. In February, 1985, the Board of Supervisors adopted the John Wayne Airport Master Plan (AMP) and the Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program (LUCP). The Airport Master Plan includes an ultimate limit of 73 average daily departures (ADDs) for most commercial jet operations. In preparing the LUCP, a projected 65 dB CNEL noise contour reflecting expected future flight levels and a reasonable mix of aircraft types was utilized. This contour, referred to as the Project Case and depicted in EIR 508 (Figure 4.15-15) (prepared jointly for the AMP and LUCP), was approved by the Board of Supervisors as the implementation line for two noise compatibility programs: Purchase Assurance and Acoustical Insulation. It was also utilized in the preparation and Board adoption of a land use plan. The Commission recognizes and utilizes the noise contours referred to in EIR 508 (Figure 4.15-15). Consideration of a future revision to this set of contours, referred to as the 73 ADD-Project Case - 1990 Contours, would probably occur subsequently to full implementation of Phase II of the JWA Master Plan, based on the JWA continuous noise monitoring program and the Commercial Airline Access Plan and Regulation. The Commission determined that the partial noise contour for JWA resulting from the 1992 FAA Demonstration Study (EIR 546, JWA Phase II Access Plan Amendments) should not be adopted. The Commission will re-evaluate this set of contours at such time as a - 16 - comprehensive noise study is conducted as part of an Airport Master Plan update. The Commercial Airline Access Plan regulates flight operations at JWA. The Commission also adopted a set of noise contours referred to as the 73 ADD-Project Case - 2005 Contour (Figure 4.15-17) from EIR 508. The Commission will utilize noise projections from either the 1990 or the 2005 Project Case contours, which ever projects the highest noise level at the given location. The JWA CNEL contours adopted by the Commission are reflected on Exhibit 5 of® Appendix D. ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES/CLEAR ZONES4 - JWA Clear Zones are shown in Exhibit-€-ef Appendix D. The Commission has not adopted Accident Potential Zones for this airport because none could be justified with the available data. BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS - The Commission, by reference, has adopted Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, of the Federal Aviation Regulations as a guideline to describe the ultimate height of structures under the "imaginary surfaces" as defined in FAR Part 77. Structures should not exceed the elevations defined in FAR Part 77.25 unless, upon completion of an aeronautical analysis conducted by the FAA pursuant to FAR Part 77.13, the Commission finds that they will be consistent with the Guidelines of Section 3.2 of the AELUP. In addition to the "imaginary surfaces", the Commission will use all of the FAR Part 77.23 standards for determining if a structure is an "obstruction." Structural height is limited to the distance between the ground elevation of the site and an elevation which the FAA has determined will not adversely affect this airport or its aeronautical operations, including interference with navigational- aids or published flight paths and procedures. The Commission may consider the adoption of criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at this airport 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. The Commission 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 airport or aeronautical operations. PLANNING AREAS - The Commission has adopted and defined as its Planning Area for John Wayne Airport all area within the 60 dB CNEL Contour (either the 73 ADD-Project Case Contour 1990 - or the 73 ADD-Project Case - 2005 Contour, whichever projects the highest noise level at the given locale) and all area that lies above or penetrates the 100:1 Imaginary Surface as defined in FAR Part 77.13. Outside of the 60 dB CNEL Contour, or other areas of special concern as delineated by the FAA and adopted by the Commission, local agencies are required to submit only those matters which contemplate or permit structures that would penetrate the 100:1 imaginary surface for notice to the FAA as defined in FAR Part 77.13. mer . . nearest runway (see Section 2.1.7.4.c.). 4 Clear Zone or "CZ" is also referred to as Runway Protection Zone "RPZ" per FAA Circular 150/5300-13. - 17 - TWENTY-YEAR FUTURE - The Commission assumes that the Airport will continue to operate in accordance with the JWA Master Plan until at least 2005. Subsequent to 2005, there is not a prescribed limit on Airport Operations. Therefore, it is assumed that Airport operations will continue at approximately the 2005 level. 2.2.5 Fullerton Municipal Airport CNEL CONTOURS - The Commission utilized the contours developed by CH2M Hill, Incorporated, for the City of Fullerton during 1980-81 (Exhibit 7 of Appendix D). These contours are based on approved noise modeling techniques and actual sound measurements, and represent the latest and most accurate data available. ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES - The Commission analyzed the accident history of Fullerton Airport and concluded that the significant.number of accidents justified the establishment of an Accident Potential Zone "CZ" within each Airport Clear Zones, and an Accident Potential Zone "II" within 500 feet of the runway centerline beyond the areas of Zone CZ and the airport proper (Ex 8-ef Appendix D). From 1968 to 1975, fifteen aircraft accidents occurred within two miles of the airport. Subsequent accidents, plus the lack of airport owned clear zones at the runway ends, convinced the Commission that the accident potential zones depicted on the map are justified,. BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS - The Commission, by reference, has adopted Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, of the Federal Aviation Regulations as a guideline to describe the ultimate height of structures under the "imaginary surfaces" as defined in FAR Part 77. Structures should not exceed the elevations defined in FAR Part 77.25 unless, upon completion of an aeronautical analysis conducted by the FAA pursuant to FAR Part 77.13, the Commission finds that they will be consistent with the Guidelines of Section 3.2 of the AELUP. In addition to the "imaginary surfaces", the Commission will use all of the FAR Part 77.23 standards for determining if a structure is an "obstruction". Structural height is limited to the distance between the ground elevation of the site and an elevation which_the FAA has determined will not adversely affect this airport or its aeronautical operations, including interference with navigational- aids or published flight paths and procedures. The Commission may consider the adoption of criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at this airport 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. The Commission 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 Es airport or aeronautical operations. PLANNING AREAS - The Commission has adopted and defined as its Planning Area for Fullerton Municipal Airport all area within the 60 dB CNEL Contour, all area within the Clear and Accident Potential Zones, and all area that lies above or penetrates the "imaginary surfaces" as defined in FAR Part 77.25. Outside of the Clear and 5 Clear Zone or "CZ" is also referred to as Runway Protection Zone "RPZ" per FAA Circular 150/5300-13. - 18 - Accident Potential Zones and 60 dB CNEL Contour, or other areas of special concern as delineated by the FAA and adopted by the Commission, local agencies are required to submit only those matters which contemplate or permit structures that would penetrate the imaginary surfaces as defined in FAR Part 77.25. - . - , : :•- -• ., •- - - - - Section 2.1.7.4.c.). TWENTY YEAR FUTURE - In response to the Commission's inquiry, the Director Manage of Fullerton Airport stated that no increase in operations is foreseen and that the present level of operations will remain constant for the foreseeable future. The Commission utilized the 1981 Fullerton Municipal Airport Master Plan prepared by CH2M Hill, as a guideline for establishing its planning area. - 19 - SECTION 3.0 - LAND USE GUIDELINES POLICIES 3.1 Concept To fulfill the purpose of this plan, land use within the boundaries of the AELU' must conform to noise, safety and height restriction standards. - 'on 1 - s oleo General Policy and Specific Policies pertaining to land use. A The General Policy is presented-whien outlines the land use standards for the planning areas. GS Specific - .•. -- . - . - . . . . ' . : Policies clarify the General Policy. Impact areas are denoted either on maps (appended),or by reference to some standard source. 3.2 Land UseGuidelines y) Policies 3.2.1 General Guidelines Polic The General Land Use Policy of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County shall be: Within the boundaries of the AELU , any land use-is acre le may be found to b: inconsistent with the AELU' which; (1) deer-net place!people so that they are adversely affected by aircraft noise, (2) dees-net concentrate!people in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, (3) dees-met permit! structures of excessive height in areas which would adversely affect the continued operation of the airport,-and (4) dees-met permit! activities or facilities that would adversely affect aeronautical operations. Adverse effect! of aircraft noise-is 132 defined by the "reasonable person" concept presented in the Noise Standards for California Airports, Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations (Appendix H). Adverse effec is of aircraft.noise includes single event noise disturbances to which people near airports are subjected. A concentration of people in an area susceptible to aircraft accidents is defined as a number of people situated on the ground so as to increase the potential magnitude of a major crash catastrophe (i.e., a larger number of fatalities or injuries than otherwise may occur). Adverse effect of structure height refers to a structure of such height and/or location that its existence or usage would threaten the continued operation of the airport, or would decrease the airport's utility, by creating an obstacle in the flight paths or other aircraft traffic patterns employed at the airport, by interfering with visual or electronic navigation systems . . . .- - ••: . • - •-: - - • - : • -, •:• , Adverse effect of activities or facilities refers to a land use that would hamper aeronautical operations within the boundaries of the AELUP of an airport by producin• or causing excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust or electronic interference, or b attracting birds. - 20 - Any land use which . - - . - :- is in conformance with this General Policy will shall be acceptable consistent with the AELUP. Any land use which, is no in conformance,with this General Polic shall be inconsistent with the AELUP. 3.2.2 Specific Guidelines Policies Some proposed land uses as normally designed and constructed probably-would may be unaeeeptable-te found to be inconsistent with the AELUP b the Commission on a case by-case basis. Other land uses would may be acceptable found to be consistent with the AELUP by to the Commission providing provided that certain conditions or design measures such as sound attenuation,of dispersal of structures, of reduction in structure height or dedication and acceptance of an avigation easemenI are instituted. However. nothing in this section shall be deemed to confer upon the Commission the jurisdictio to require the dedication of an avigation easement. This section is applicable to project• submitted to the Commission after the adoption of the revisions set forth herein and t projects within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. . • . . - , - - .. ': ' . Examples o limitations on land uses due to noise are reflected on set forth i Figure 2. FIGURE 2 LIMITATIONS ON LAND USE DUE TO NOISE LAND USE CATEGORY COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL dB (Applicable to Aircraft Noise Sources) 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential (all types): Single and Multi-Family Residences ,tea Community Facilities: PZ " Churches, Libraries, Schools, Preschools, Daycare Centers, m Hospitals, Nursing/ Convalescent Homes, and other noise sensitive uses Commercial: g= Retail, Office Industrial: NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE CONSISTEN Conventional construction methods used. No special noise reduction requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE CONSISTEN Must use sound attenuation as required by the California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations. Residential use sound attenuation required to ensure that the interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dB. Commercial and industrial structures shall be sound attenuated to meet Noise Impact Zone "1" criteria (refer to Section 3.2.2, Pages 19-22). NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE INCONSISTEN All residential units are inconsistent unless units are sound attenuated to ensure that the interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dB, and that all units are indoor oriented so as to preclude noise impingement on outdoor living areas. - 21 - 3.2.3 Noise Impact Zone "1", High Noise Impact (65 dB CNEL and Above) Noise impact in this zone is sufficient to warrant restrictions on residential uses and to require sound attenuation measures on other uses. All residential units are-acceptable inconsisten in this area unless it can be shown conclusively that such units are sufficiently sound attenuated for present and projected noise exposures, which shall be the energy sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL. Furthermore, all residential units are to be sufficiently indoor oriented so as to preclude noise impingement on outdoor living activities. Patios . -•• . - .. ' - . , - . -, . - . - . . . : .. . - areas, as defined in Section 1.5. Institutional uses such as schools, churches, hospitals, libraries, and other noise sensitive uses a e may also be consisten in this zone. Commercial, industrial, and recreational uses-ar-e may be acceptable in this zone providing that commercial and industrial structures are sufficiently sound attenuated to allow normal work activities to be conducted. Said structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected exterior noise to meet the following criteria: Typical Use Level L (eq)*(12)** Private office6, church sanctuary, board room, conference room, etc. 45 dB(A) General office', reception, clerical etc. 50 dB(A) Bank lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing pool, etc. 55 dB(A) Manufacturing, kitchen, warehousing, etc. 65 dB(A) * L(eq) is the equivalent sound level for a specified time period in dB(A). ** Measured from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or other appropriate, approved time period. 3.2.4 Noise Impact Zone "2", Moderate Noise Impact (60 dB CNEL or Greater, Less Than 65 dB CNEL) Noise impact in this area is sufficient to require sound attenuation as stipulated by the California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations. Single noise events in this area create serious disturbances to many inhabitants. Even though the Commission would not find residential units incompatible in this area, the Commission strongly recommends that residential units be limited or excluded from this area unless sufficiently sound attenuated. The residential use interior sound attenuation requirement shall be a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of 45 dB. 6 An enclosed office intended for use by an individual. 7 An open office intended to have more than one work station. - 22 - 3.2.5 Clear Zone "CZ", Extreme Crash Hazard The severe potential for loss of life and property due to accidents prohibits most land uses in this area. Also, the close proximity to aircraft operations limits land uses which would endanger such operations. Only airport-related uses and open space uses, including agriculture and certain types of transportation and utility uses are permitted. No buildings intended for human habitation are permitted in the Clear Zone. Furthermore, because of the proximity to aeronautical operations, uses in this area must not attract birds nor emit excessive glare or light, nor produce or cause steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference so as to interfere with, or endanger, aeronautical operations. 3.2.6 Accident Potential Zone "I", Considerable Crash Hazard The potential for loss of life and property due to aircraft accidents is sufficient to require density and intensity of use restrictions in this zone. In accordance with the General Policy, the Commission would find unacceptable any land use where lot coverage exceeded fifty (50) percent or where more than one hundred (100) persons were placed for long periods in a structure (i.e., a free-standing building). All forms of residential uses are unacceptable in this zone, as are places of indoor or outdoor assembly (i.e., churches, schools, conference centers, restaurants, etc.). Open space, commercial, industrial, and airport-related uses are acceptable in this zone providing they adhere to the density and intensity of use restrictions. Furthermore, because of the proximity to aeronautical operations; uses in this area must not emit excessive glare or light, nor produce or cause steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference so as to interfere with, or endanger, aeronautical operations. 3.2.7 Accident Potential Zone "II", Limited Crash Hazard The potential for loss of life and property due to aircraft accidents is sufficient to require density and intensity of use restrictions in this zone. In accordance with the General Policy, the Commission would fmd unacceptable any land use where lot coverage exceeded seventy-five (75) percent or where more than two hundred (200) persons were placed for long periods in an open assembly area or in a structure (i.e., a free-standing building). Most forms of open space, industrial, commercial, and airport-related uses are acceptable, whereas residential and public facilities (schools, churches, etc.) are not acceptable. Furthermore, because of the proximity to aeronautical operations, uses in this area must not emit excessive glare or light, nor produce or cause steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference so as to interfere with, or endanger, aeronautical operations. In applying the APZ standards, the Commission considers a free-standing building as one structure despite the existence of fire walls that may separate tenants or users. Furthermore, the Commission considers that if a structure crosses over boundary lines of APZ's I or II, or over a boundary between a non-crash hazard area and an APZ, then the entire building shall be considered to be in the more restrictive APZ area regarding density standards. - 23 - 3.2.8 Height Restriction Zone Any object, which by reason of its height or location would interfere with the established, or planned, airport flight procedures, patterns, or navigational systems, is unacceptable to the Commission. Similarly, any proposal which would cause a diminution in the utility of an airport is unacceptable to the Commission. The standards, criteria, and procedures promulgated by the FAA for the thorough evaluation of development projects are designed to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. The application of these principles by the Commission will ensure the stability of local air transportation, as well as promote land uses that are compatible with the airport environs. However, any object which rises above the height of surrounding development, or which is located in close proximity to any of the various flight paths, must be clearly visible during hours of twilight or darkness and must not threaten, endanger, or interfere with aeronautical operations. Such objects, even if within the above height restrictions, are not acceptable to the Commission unless they are clearly marked or lighted according to FAA standards. 3.2.9 Avi'ation Easements The dedication, acceptance and recordation of an avigation easement in favor of an airpo •roprietor is designated as a method which may be employed by airport proprietors foi controlling and reducing noise problems surrounding airports, pursuant to Title 21 California Code of Regulations, Section 5037. Therefore, an avigation easement may b: considered by the Commission on a case-by-case basis as a factor which may render a lan• use, within'the AELUP planning areas set forth in Section 3.2.3, consistent with the AELUP. However, nothing in this section shall be deemed to confer upon the Commission the jurisdiction to require the dedication of an avigation easement. Thi section is applicable to projects submitted to the Commission after the adoption of the revisions set forth herein and to projects within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. Samples of avigation easements are set forth in Appendix J 3.2.10 Disclosure Appropriate written notification of aircraft noise impact, to all initial and subsequent buyers, lessees, and renters within the AELUP Noise Impact Zones set forth in Section 3.2.4, may be a requirement for a land use to be found consistent with this AELUP. 3.2.11 A i. sx.i h r.ii,F.`fGYtins' In reviewing projects, the Commission will find any structure, either within or outside of the planning areas, inconsistent with this AELUP if it: 1. Is determined to be a "hazard" by the FAA; 2. Would raise the ceiling or visibility minimums at an airport for an existing or planned instrument procedure (i.e., a procedure consistent with the FAA- approved airport layout plan or a proposed procedure formally on file with the FAA); - 24 - 3. Would result in a loss in airport utility, such as by causing the usable length of the runway to be reduced; or 4. Would conflict with the VFR air space used for the airport traffic pattern or enroute navigation to and from the airport. In order to apply the preceding specific guidelines in the most diligent manner, the Commission will consider all relevant data pertaining to the various airports within Orange County and the areas surrounding them. The Commission will consider current information, as it becomes available, whenever germane to the Commission's deliberations, even though such data may not have been formally adopted and appended to this plan. The integration of current and reliable information into this ,_ plan will be an ongoing goal of the Commission. - 25 - • SECTION 4.0 - IMPLEMENTATION 4.1 Statutes The Public Utilities Code for the State of California, Sections 21670 through 21679.5 governs the activities and responsibilities of the Airport Land Use Commission. A copy of these can be found in Appendix A of this document. Further discussion of these responsibilities can be found in Sections4.3-4:-12 below. Generally, the Commission is required to make recommendations directly to the California Department of Transportation/Aeronautics Program regarding the required State license for proposed airports and heliports/helistops. The Commission also makes findings regarding consistency of proposed land use plans/regulations/projects with this AELUP and forwards those findings to the appropriate local jurisdictions for their consideration. 4.2 General and Specific Plans Each local agency having jurisdiction over any area within the planning areas (as defined in Sections 2.1. . 8.1 through 2.1. .4 8.5) is required to submit its general or specific plans for that area to the Commission for a determination in accordance with the Government Code for the State of California, Section 65302.3 and Public Utilities Code Section 21676. The submittals should focus on those areas within the AELUP noise impact, accident potential, and height restriction zones. The only requirement is that the submittals illustrate how local agencies will incorporate the performance standards outlined in this AELUP into their planning, zoning, and development processes. All agencies are encouraged to file their submittals at the earliest practical time. The agencies are encouraged further to include a statement or summary of those issues which are believed to be consistent, as well as inconsistent, with the standards of this AELUP. 4.3 Amendments to General and Specific Plans Within the AELUP planning areas (as defined in Sections 2.1: . .8.1 through 2.1. .4 10), any amendment to a General or Specific Plan must be submitted to the Commission for a determination prior to its adoption by the local agency. The submittal should be in the same manner as with Section 4.2 above. 4.4 Zoning Ordinances and Building Regulations Within the AELUP planning areas (as defined in Sections 2.1. . .8.1 through 2.1. .A 101, any proposed changes to . zoning ordinance or building regulation must be submitted to the Commission for a determination prior to its adoption by the local agency. The submittal should be in the same manner as with Section 4.2 above. 4.5 Airport Master Plans Each public agency owning an airport within Orange County must submit any change to its Airport Master Plan to the Commission for a determination prior to its adoption pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. - 26 - 4.6 Other Submittals A project other than those described above, including but not limited to use permits and site plans, may be submitted to the Commission for a determination prior to its adoption. The submittal should be in the same manner as with Section 4.2 above. 4.7 Acceptance of Submittal Matters referred to the Commission for review shall be deemed accepted upon the date when all materials and information necessary for processing a project have been confirmed as received by the Commission staff. Staff will inform the applicant, or local jurisdiction, in writing within five working days after receipt of an item for consideration, whether more information is necessary or if the item will then be deemed accepted and scheduled for formal review by the Commission (See Appendix Q - Referral Confirmation Notice). Necessary information may include final plans, acoustical reports or FAA Aeronautical Studies when deemed necessary for Commission review by the Commission staff. This procedure does not apply to screen checks or Draft Environmental Impact Report responses which staff will respond to within the specified review period. Such official written . . -- - - •: -: - . ' _ . ' •- _ - - - . If the applicant or local jurisdiction is not contacted by Commission staff by the sixth business day, they should contact the Commission office to verify receipt of the original referral package. Upon receipt of a complete referral for Airport Land Use Commission review and consideration, the Commission Secretary shall schedule and agendize said referral for the next regular Airport Land Use Commission meeting. 4.8 Who May File The implementation of this AELUP shall result generally from the interaction between the Commission and local agencies. Only local agencies may submit General and Specific Plans, Airport Master Plans, and amendments thereto. Project sponsors may submit referrals either as required by local agencies, or as requested specifically by the Commission. 4.9 Commission Finding of Inconsistency When the Commission determines that a submittal is inconsistent with the AELUP, the Commissionshall promptly notify the affected local agency. The local agency may modify the submitted project so as to be consistent with the AELUP, and resubmit the project to the Commission for a verification of consistency; or the local agency may instead choose to overrule the Commission by following the procedure established in PUC Sections 21676 and 21676.5 (see Appendix A). This procedure requires the local agency to: hold a public hearing on the matter by its governing body (Board of Supervisors, City Council); make specific findings that the proposed overruling is consistent with the purposes stated in PUC Section 21670 (see Appendix A); and overrule the Commission by at least a two-thirds vote of the members present of the Board of Supervisors or City Council. - 27 - When such an overruling occurs, the PUC provides in Section 21678 (see Appendix A) that if the local agency does not operate the public airport in question, then the operator of that affected public airport shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by, or resulting directly or indirectly from, the local agency's decision to overrule the Commission's Determination of Inconsistency. 4.10 Continuous Monitoring It shall be the ongoing function of the Commission and its staff to monitor all development within the planning areas to ensure that the purposes of this AELUP are fulfilled. 4.11 Periodic Review The Commission shall review the substance and adequacy of this AELUP at intervals not to exceed twenty-four (24) months. 4.12 AELUP Amendments Upon approving any amendment to this AELUP, the Commission will promptly inform all affected agencies of the action. - 28 - APPENDIX J SAMPLE AVIGATION EASEMENT Typical Avigation Easement This indenture made this day of , 19 , between hereinafter referred to as Grantor, and the ]insert County or City namel, a political subdivision in the State of California, hereinafter referred to as Grantee. The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency/ of which are hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual and assig- nable easement over the following described parcel of land in which the Grantor holds a fee simple estate. The property which is sut4ect to this easement is depicted as on"Exhibit A" attached and is more particularly described as follows: [Insert legal description of real property] The easement applies to the Airspace above an imaginary plane over the real property. The plane is described as follows: The imaginary plane above the hereinbefore described real property, as such plane is defined by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and consists of a plane (describe approach, transition, or horizontal surface]; the elevation of said plane being based upon the Airport of- ficial runway end elevation of feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), as determined by [Insert name and Date of Survey or Airport Layout Plan that determines the elevation] the approximate dimensions of which said plane are described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incor- porated herein by reference. The aforesaid easement and right-of-way includes, but is not limited to: (1) For the use and benefit of the public, the easement and continuing right to fly, or cause or permit the flight by any and all persons, or any aircraft, of any and all kinds now or hereafter known, in, through, across, or about any portion of the Airspace hereinabove described; and (2) The easement and right to cause or create, or permit or allow to be caused or created within all space above the existing surface of the hereinabove described real propetty and any and all Air- space laterally adacertt to said real property, such noise, vibration, currents and other effects of air, illumination and fuel consumption as may be inherent in, or may arise or occur from or during the operation of aircraft of any and all kinds, now or hereafter known or used, for navigation of or flight in air; and (3) A continuing right to Gear and keep clear from the Airspace any portions-of buildings, structures, or improvements of any kinds, and of trees or other otyects, including the right to remove or demolish those portions of such buildings, structures, improvements, trees, or other things which extend into or above said Airspace, and the right to cut to the ground level and remove, any trees which extend into or above the Airspace; and (4) The right to mark and light, or cause or require to be marked or lighted, as obstructions to air navi- gation, any and all buildings, structures, or other improvements, and trees or other objects, which extend into or above the Airspace; and • (5) The-right of ingress to, passage within, and egress from the hereinabove described real property, for the purposes described in subparagraphs (3) and (4) above at reasonable times and after rea- • sonable notice. For and behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, the Grantor hereby covenants with the jinsert County or City name], for the direct benefit of the real property constituting the Air- port hereinafter described, that neither the Grantor, nor its successors in interest or assigns will con- struct, install, erect, place or grow in or upon the hereinabove described real property, nor will they permit to allow, arty building structure, improvement, tree or other object which extends into or above the Airspace, or which constitutes an obstruction to air navigation, or which obstructs or interferes with the use of the easement and rights-of-way herein granted. The easements and rights-of-way herein granted shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the di- rect benefit of that real property which constitutes the Airport, in the 'Insert County or City namel, State of California; and shall further be deemed in gross, being conveyed to the Grantee for the benefit of the Grantee and any and all members of the general public who may use said easement or right-of-way, in landing at. taking off from or operating such aircraft in or about the Airport, or in otherwise flying through said Airspace. This grant of easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights which may from time to time have against any air carrier or private operator for negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft. These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns of the Grantor, and, for the purpose of this instrument, the real pro- perty firstly hereinabove described is the servient tenement and said Airport is the dominant tenement. DATED: STATE OF } ss COUNTY OF } On , before me, the undersigned, a Not2ry Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared , and known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public • RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND ) EXHIBIT VI-1A WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: ) MCAS, EL TORO ) OPTION: METHOD I ) ) ) ) • ) ) ) AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, SOUND, AIR SPACE AND AVIGATION EASEMENT DEED Whereas, , hereinafter called the "Grantor" , is the owner in fee of that certain parcel of land situated in the County of Orange, State of California, more particularly described as follows: hereinafter called "the Grantor's property"; FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby grant to the COUNTY OF ORANGE, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee", its successors and assigns, a perpetual easement in gross of aircraft operation, aircraft sound and noise, aircraft avigation and flight, hazard and air space, referred to hereinafter, one word for the entirety, as a perpetual, nonexclusive avigation easement in, to, over and through all air space above Grantor's property, as particularly described hereinbefore, above a mean sea level of feet, to an indefinite height above said mean sea level. The Grantor herein, its heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns, grants the avigation easement to Grantee, for the use and benefit of the public, including, but not limited to, the United States Armed Forces, for the passage of all aircraft ("aircraft" being defined for the purposes of this instrument as any contrivance now known or hereafter invented, used or designed for navigation of or-flight in the air) by whomsoever owned and operated, together with the right to cause in all air space above the Grantor's property . such noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, fuel particles and all other effects that may be caused by the operation at or on the Marine Corps Air Station at El Toro and any other airport or air facility which is or may be located at or near the site of the said Marine Corps Air Station; and Grantor herein, its heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns, does hereby fully waive, remise and release any right or cause of action which it may now have or which it may have in the future against Grantee, its successors and assigns, due to such noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, fuel particles and all other effects that • VI-6 Exhibit VI-1A (Cont. ) may be caused or may have been caused by the operating of aircraft landing at, or taking off from, or operating at or on said Marine Corps Air Station at El Toro or other airport or air facility which is or may be located at or near the site of said Marine Corps Air Station. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said easement and right-of-way and all rights appertaining thereto unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, it being understood and agreed that these covenants and agreements shall run with the land. This easement is granted for any use by any aircraft present or future, from or to the Marine Corps Air Station at El Toro and any other airport or air facility which is or may be located at or near the site of said Marine Corps Air Station, including any future change or increase in the boundaries, volume of operation or noise or pattern of air traffic thereof. DATED: _ By: "Grantor" STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ) ss. On , 19 , before me,. a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared and personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed the within instrument as President and Secretary, on behalf of the corporation herein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its Board of -Directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said County and State VI-7 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND ) EXHIBIT VI-1B WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: ) JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT ) OPTION: METHOD I ) ) ) ) ) ) ) AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, SOUND, AIR SPACE AND AVIGATION EASEMENT DEED Whereas, , hereinafter called the "Grantor", is the owner in fee of that certain parcel of land situated in the County of Orange, State of California, more particularly described as follows: hereinafter called "the Grantor's property"; FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby grant to the COUNTY OF ORANGE, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee", its successors and assigns, a perpetual easement in gross of aircraft operation, aircraft sound and noise, aircraft avigation and flight, hazard and air space, referred to hereinafter, one word for the entirety, as a perpetual, nonexclusive avigation easement in, to, over and through all air space above Grantor's property, as particularly described hereinbefore, above a mean sea level of feet, to an indefinite height above said mean sea level. The Grantor herein, its heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns, grants the avigation easement to Grantee, for the use and benefit of the public, including the United States Armed Forces, for the passage of all aircraft ("aircraft" being defined for the purposes of this instrument as any contrivance now known or hereafter invented, used or designed for navigation of or flight in the air) by whomsoever owned and operated, together with the right • to cause in all air space above the Grantor's prbperty such noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, fuel particles and all other effects that may be caused by the operation at or on the John Wayne Airport at Santa Ana and any other airport or air facility which is or may be located at or near the site of the said John Wayne Airport; and Grantor herein, its heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns, does hereby fully waive, remise and release any right or cause of action which it may now have or which it may have in the future against Grantee, its successors and assigns, due to such noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, T7T-8 Exhibit VI-1B (Cont. ) fuel particles and all other effects that may be caused or may have been caused by the operating of aircraft landing at, or taking off from, or operating at or on said John Wayne Airport at Santa Ana or other airport or air facility which is or may be located at or near the site of said John Wayne Airport. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said easement and right-of-way and all rights appertaining thereto unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, it being understood and agreed that these covenants and agreements shall run with the land. This easement is granted for any use by any aircraft present or future, from or to the John Wayne Airport at Santa Ana and any other airport or air facility which is or may be located at or near the site of said John Wayne Airport, including any future change or increase in the boundaries, volume of operation or noise or pattern of air traffic thereof. DATED: By: "Grantor" STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ) ss. On , 19 , before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and. State, personally appeared and • personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed the within instrument as President and Secretary, on behalf of the corporation herein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its Board of Directors." WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said County and State • VI-9 APPENDIX D NOISE CONTOUR MAPS AND CLEAR ZONE/ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE MAPS BLVD.I I BEACH 0 HI_ /,/''7' L/ LJ BLVD. / _ _ /G/ .off' tea//"///2 STANTON -! / A// 11 - - _, AV. t .1( C .:1E2DL, 0 04 *‘/ /..." . ,_..._. //./{:" \ \ \ 4 /„, � li� r� 1 � A '.44 C !�l i Jj — :v rn lll�p ,/,/ ~'!Jgp .- 111 " o 7/.7 .f,ciiiis_ 46.0_ ,/i GALE IIIIN '------ iiii lilt L. lit. l� IIllt , I _ :: g 1 , It 1 k1/2, IN i %, . 81 rll t,_D V Milt . , F" ,._GNOLIA - \I ST. _ ill .. ma": ...„en_. �• � sU1 ` z ., .: ._ 1 F .' 1,,, lllll g -- 91l LI p _ gLi • m rirr �� � .) ...____ _ . li_ _ - r O 111 N. I ' 11 ig 7 f llr OC e � Z //%� 111 �•.. lF,.. I hj iii IPS' . )l _ .-) ll K c J, BROOKHURST I RD. .I AIRPORT IMPACT ZONES FULLERTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ' , LEGEND CERTIFICATION Adopted by the Airport Land Use -..---• RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE i SCHOOL commission for orange County 0 500 1000 1500 2000 — ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE II ,19_ I 200 I I I I ---• CITY BOUNDARIES -60-CNEL CONTOUR SCALE IN FEET — AIRPORT BOUNDARIES Enc R.Freed.Executive Officer TM/coltfultn.dgn �JII I k. 0 ;� I 1 I kiezli oin A0ESpi k„,,, p . '�-LJLILJ ._'..—%,� `L J I. -mumu ACOfroo1 1-il�g g. �_,�=:�1IIII��— jJ 4ice!I!3i, I I L I, -1 gAi - �I �: : � ..I .. '�]MnMNI�r� ouall�lll�,����__� �. �_II l rL - -= a s '� `mit,AVM Lilliagi'll 1111111.h. 1 I r,wI- L1Li_.� = 1 _�,.:1■ FII. ,a5: i, �' _4LI .FI___LI . 1111611".. .. .1, ..,..,,T.. 1 y11111101013 ��DOD"fi_`. i ll]�IIm� ;t���j "� _ IDS mi OT ---.'" � •1IILI\:_,Iii/ 0161-11-11!y *(A _ ,./-.” a imiEnkruc--3.-1-E 7 '1 !"-P. 1..MINN O lirkl<C II �1• � 'vr101– i ..'ALAI;.,*. , 4 et>„,.,...*=1,,,Tn- eice---_-L.S.r=ifilreillfzimi 11 = , ,,„.,_ ...,._____ Ali ...,43;m1117. � av.i = - rim ill----err--'" 0 r(- NI um A—= A lairi ;-'- '4*--r • ,,--)A-R a (LL-� �� �Iil�lll!i�7`I 0 • et% o i, �. TTI; .II _mom 1l\ tt i .. �1[-11.04.a __ -l_-=� fit I\\\�__Imm_ i V r B E/'"P F I -- V" <E _Litriliff, ,—..„‘Ar :; , , ...1 1MIR i f at' yip _1111111 I©® IFI :1l ��� im Fr n I 1 ►_`'��s't iii�'o �1 , P . rfin•g norintuonnoidIL 17: -kil ri_211j, 11011 1 � � I �� dinL1�� „,„ , 4 _ a _----- r(4-- 41,1.j( Z f' tit z., Fill .1 rr---Irilrr-' f�lln-1 II I1 T alknnnnnl—I AIRPORT IMPACT ZONES LOS ALAMITOS ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER ' , CERTIFICATION LEGEND Adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County 1150 2300 3450 4600 5750 --- CZ CLEAR ZONE L SCHOOL •19- I I I -.-.-, CITY BOUNDARIES 1 575 SCALE IN FEET AIRPORT BOUNDARIES BO CNEL CONTOUR Eric R.Freed,Executive Officer TM/coltlosal.dgn d:\cad\dms00074\caltlosal.dan Jun.17.1999 11:51.33 - i liKl ,Ir: / • iii# • Amp -)1111141k . ;Pr." V ASO. I i �h \ /? .,�, APZII \�` / i - kiii, A':, i,IL ,.,.....,....,—..,..• II i, H Z 1 :.__ of+ .PZ I APZ II .� `►� /41L Alitl. A, 71\\Ilk 1 .•1611 er:-'7-1111111100fr.t•Ak.a* -•.1.'7.-,-'.Z.;4 0 iv) �i�k► 414.foriZP-14.1.0,...;.!.'4 � �, i e � �� �I' h r.oCl ; rip i:�ogr.2 f((4 -i-k, 11�\ti, ~ .1l. �.'� � ��,II` `A �.0 BrT � n,Cilf')I/Q�DyU i .a�;�'I�, / ,yam .,� ij�+�;,-� .�:c r�- � �l/ f,?/�� Ir�,f f(,f�;� 1��. 4a•• ��� 12 APZ II E"�` FL'►!V ;�t<= ��� ��e Qs l fr�,,� � jj���l�� �� IRVINE q Ill c >,%���'% k��`� ,,� 1�1^ � 411141 . r ,••••• i, -�% ,,! TIII•w k- ;V.�c�`��� ` ;;` (,J�,,,la ..,\F---.' , I - , e....**** •• ♦•�2 Gine l Milk * r r , i.„..__11..:,;‘1,•'''‘.1--""'"' ` •'J\'.1�f 41... �i�K i %-r �. ,1` I- ' V.''&•:' " lir - -.. ..t r PAn,/,-3.•-/,p„..4.,, Ai,tyOki...46, i . • t ,.. \1/4.. . k 1\c744 r II i '-Z 0 / "'31' O r�j�`\�l^�!v11rj, W,JJr�°w �;� ± 6 dv �� m. rib �* 4.4..\\„::, l.��<� t���- �r `r^`,� 4\I r �4 -� trim �r , mor` `�f�•,�Sy���, ,���lt�� ',� � I s`1 if )1044i; •�J ''1 0:; ." . ACX `L� �( :.,: f ,, ' • i .m-� . :111,' =s; 'i�ra *� 4��V1 �l/_ ;� 4.0 1.1 4/-- /a Ala tillT44110.0.41/111r0,-- -)kill MI - -9114 I�.-3- �4,�gia.. nmoi' iitil"� Uv70 ___». diis,70_,,,1--10- ..' Icy 1 ev . lc1 m + ' tri .slo,, c 1 dR. `��' .�� �,� r 'fir k�'� _ _• 7 r62.sy Illiip ff WC; •.. .- -• Arity • • .•fe,li • ‘‘.1 i ' ;0.1117/1,7)III., 4., . , :.gfi.4i I ..,(ki ir;,, .,). i 1: el,Ift,i4i ), 7 i (•, 5.: i ,,,,t A. f.: . it..,, I *It Viki II e•1 I kt!=4 AL. N..,.,:w lik_. n?� i AIRPORT IMPACT ZONES • MCAS EL TORO ' LEGEND , --• CLEAR ZONE CERTIFICATION Adopted by the Airport Land Use --- ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE I Commission for Orange County 0 2750 5500 8250 11000 13750 --- ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE II l SCHOOL I ( 1 ' t ' l -•-•• CITY BOUNDARIES le 1375 SCALE IN FEET --60—CNEL CONTOUR AIRPORT BOUNDARIES Ede R.Freed,Executive Officer TM/colteltro.dgn d:,cad,dms00074,caltelbo.dan Jun.17.1999 10:04:38 I MI,liM itigr.L,.�����11.�r1Yi �111111dd.1�i�141,_•11...,...5IFl.,.. it"F _, wanicoginurromimilli 1 111111. finii An 1 ill g,... ,-4.4, s.,,... „,,, Mb ■i�1r flI7 lir` \ a� it`1-I �� : t,11;11119MIM _�I� 1;•‘7.-46.4,14...A . ' / TUSTIN IAa I SANTA A �� � / � . _di __.,,,, - ._ .AlIt•- • 4 4 / -....: gm 210.111WL % ‘-, ,te , V 7, `• it IA ---'-'‘ fr ..4. "4, / , fogiolwanirm......... ..,-"i 4N -\, ,. ), , .), siliz6-11L111111" /,',4011.44,110.m 'MY A.44wArop. z/4.6. ,4 1 „,________;„.____________,,,____ .. ..''Ir,--' • �011, 1 uL�iu \ �rir-Or��'►j140, ��1#481�� r(VO lQQ29 O� -t BI�fj`��► .. •irk -P!'� , o 0 , 7-.. h , / Arrir *,,Z1, tir,h tt #4* I 17Mi-tila.Mmti ,„7)4/ Vir4,/7 ' fq l /0 941b ;1'.. 11 1 "URAA •,AAI;OW 4, l 12 i 1=4 __ __M II I&%-1 OM I ' 744f$ i ' /ay ,t4 t °°1 /.., tity ESA I f STAIMIRr\N ir.1,t$ti' ��IRVINE o�A4 -.-:.. , . ,• 1.7,77,iwx&„ .,‘„,,,,e .; 0 : _minwIL< lf**--V-I. . .•tibit: 1 w%0400,A6iT irte-r ,e), 0 I g s I a -::- 01Y14.173Callij ' i 40 -.F'7 --N 1 1 P;_' .44%..h.‘k<A ),>; 71*.* 1. 4114,' Irn to* 00 0I 4 4�, [; O00 �' oS..V,,t‘A'*/ ,„ ,°0�� k Fifi-..,NSPFY/Ie' f // 404 .4): - - ',.1 "il.�” rl� ' ,(3,6 ,1%,OJ�oo � i B ;% --.*Velf7.-Ar ! er . ci,tr-,,,.... .-.A iiki4iViofr-Jc21 o r� s ! i* Otj AIRPORT IMPACT ZONES JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 1 4 LEGEND CERTIFICATION Adopted by the Airport Land Use -••••-• RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE Commission for Orange County 1 0 1150 2300 3450 4600 5758 I t I 1 1 1 1 -•-•-. CITY BOUNDARIES a SCHOOL .19— 575 SCALE IN FEET — AIRPORT BOUNDARIES -60--CNEL CONTOUR Eric R.Freed,Executive 011icer ru,cari.o.dan r1 r nrl\dmslNf074\rnitiwn ricin .fun 17 1999 1142:10