FAA Documents City Told the Public Were a Mandate to Cut Down 5 Palms – Called for Public Notice and Comment

Photo from FAA packet indicating “Tree #1”.

The OB Rag has copies of the FAA documents the city of San Diego told the public were a mandate to cut down five specific palm trees.

The documents include a letter dated February 28, 2022, regarding each identified palm on Newport Avenue, but they’re basically form letters and except for the address of the specific palm and its height, they’re all identical.

But here’s the problem for the city. Each letter calls for public notice and comment. This means the city misrepresented the FAA mandate. Not only that, the letter(s) spell out a required process that states the outcome of each identified palm tree “cannot be predicted prior to public circularization.”

That means, nothing can happen, no outcome can be resolved before the public is notified and has an opportunity to comment.

Here’s a quote from one of the letters (again, each letter is identical):

“To pursue a favorable determination at the originally submitted height, further study would be necessary. Further study entails distribution to the public for comment, and may extend the study period up to 120 days. The outcome cannot be predicted prior to public circularization.”

And, as for the emergency to be done by this week, see this:

IF MORE THAN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER HAS ELAPSED WITHOUT ATTEMPTED RESOLUTION, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO REACTIVATE THE STUDY BY FILING A NEW FAA FORM 7460-1, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION.

The letter(s) state that each of the ID’ed palms “exceeds obstruction standards and/or would have an adverse physical or electromagnetic interference effect upon navigable airspace or air navigation facilities.”

Also, “Pending resolution of the issues described below, the structure is presumed to be a hazard to air navigation.”

Then, it’s obvious that the letter is a form letter as each palm is referred to as a “structure” with the following:

If the structure were reduced in height so as not to exceed 22 feet above ground level (220 feet above mean sea level), it would not create a substantial adverse effect and a favorable determination could subsequently be issued.

So, if the city were to simply lop off the top so the entire structure doesn’t exceed 22 feet above ground level, it would be fine. Yeah, lopping off the top of a palm kills it, so this is no resolution at all.

Here’s the reason, it appears, the city was in such a rush to get the job done, to kill the 5 Newport palms by Friday.

The letter(s) state that if a resolution of each “structure” is not completed within 60 days of the letter – dated February 28 – then the airport / city would have to “reactivate the study”, that is start the process of determinating whether the trees were “hazards” all over again. Monday, was April 25 and Friday is April 29 – over the 60 days allowance. So the city had to bring the trees down before Friday.

“Here is page 1 and the top of page 2 of the 7 page document:

** NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS **

The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:

Structure: Palm Tree, Newport Ave #1
Location: San Diego, CA
Latitude: 32-44-26.29N NAD 83
Longitude: 117-14-26.88W
Heights: 198 feet site elevation (SE)
74 feet above ground level (AGL)
272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)

Initial findings of this study indicate that the structure as described exceeds obstruction standards and/or would have an adverse physical or electromagnetic interference effect upon navigable airspace or air navigation facilities. Pending resolution of the issues described below, the structure is presumed to be a hazard to air navigation.

If the structure were reduced in height so as not to exceed 22 feet above ground level (220 feet above mean sea level), it would not create a substantial adverse effect and a favorable determination could subsequently be issued.

To pursue a favorable determination at the originally submitted height, further study would be necessary. Further study entails distribution to the public for comment, and may extend the study period up to 120 days. The outcome cannot be predicted prior to public circularization.

If you would like the FAA to conduct further study, you must make the request within 60 days from the date of issuance of this letter.
See Attachment for Additional information.

NOTE: PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE STRUCTURE IS PRESUMED TO BE A HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION. THIS LETTER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURE EVEN AT A REDUCED HEIGHT. ANY RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO THE FAA SO THAT A FAVORABLE DETERMINATION CAN SUBSEQUENTLY BE ISSUED.

IF MORE THAN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER HAS ELAPSED WITHOUT ATTEMPTED RESOLUTION, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO REACTIVATE THE STUDY BY FILING A NEW FAA FORM 7460-1, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION.

f we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (847) 294-7575, or vivian.vilaro@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2022-AWP-343-OE.

Here’s page 1 in original form:

We’ll post more of the FAA packet in a bit.