Roof To Go On San Diego Building Deemed Obstruction By FAA | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-09.15.25

AirborneNextGen-
09.09.25

Airborne-Unlimited-09.10.25

Airborne-AffordableFlyers-09.11.25

AirborneUnlimited-09.12.25

Tue, Jan 16, 2007

Roof To Go On San Diego Building Deemed Obstruction By FAA

Agency Says Construction Project Is 20 Feet Too Tall

The city of San Diego has given a developer the go ahead to put the roof on a building which is the center of a dispute between the developer, the FAA and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports the 12-story building, a new construction project just north of Montgomery Field's boundary area, will be 180 feet tall when complete. According to the FAA, anything over 160 feet in that location will pose a hazard to air traffic at the airport.

As ANN reported, the city ordered the developer, Sunroad Enterprises, to cease construction early last November when it became aware the building might be too tall. The FAA and Caltrans had informed Sunroad last spring the completed building would be too tall, and Sunroad initially agreed to meet the FAA's 160-foot restriction. Two months later, however, the developer submitted a new plan showing the building to be 180 feet.

Perhaps not by coincidence, Sunroad had already framed the top two floors before submitting its new plan. Neither the FAA nor Caltrans has the authority to halt construction, since the project is outside the airport boundary. That's when the city forced the company to cease building while the situation was sorted out.

The FAA says that while the building sits outside the airport boundary, it also sits right in the path of IFR traffic circling to land on runways 23, 10L and 10R. The only published instrument procedures for the airport are to runway 28R. If winds or a runway closure were to require a landing on runways 23, 10L or 10R, a pilot must fly the procedure to 28R and circle to another runway after descending to minimums. Pilots circling to the north would fly very near -- if not directly over -- the new building in the process. Aircraft capable of identifying the PALOS intersection on the approach are allowed to descend to 453 AGL while circling.

A lawsuit filed last month by the City Attorney's office, and joined last week by AOPA and a group of local pilots and airport users, demands Sunroad remove the top two floors of the building to bring it into compliance with the FAA's restrictions.

Additionally, Caltrans is pursuing its own legal options. It says Sunroad failed to apply for the proper permits required of any project that doesn't comply with FAA standards. State and city attorneys are said to be working on a joint strategy and are seeking an expedited court date.

The city's decision to allow workers to add the roof comes after Sunroad warned the top two floors it had framed up will suffer damage from rain if the building sits too much longer. The city allowed Sunroad to add the roof at its own risk -- but San Diego warned Sunroad the city won't be held liable if the suit is successful and Sunroad is eventually forced to remove the top two floors.

Sunroad maintains it has done nothing to jeopardize air safety. It says the building is not a hazard and that the lawsuit is sensationalizing the issue. In a statement, the company said, "Sunroad Enterprises is fully committed to public safety, and we would not have built the building if it was a public-safety hazard."

Exactly what qualification the company has to make such a determination is unclear.

In a seeming bit of double-talk, Sunroad has offered to fund the necessary navigation equipment to allow a straight-in approach to runway 23, thus obviating the need for circling approaches. That leads one to wonder why a straight-in approach to 23 would be necessary if there's no hazard to circling IFR traffic? In any event, the FAA says studying the impact of a new approach on traffic at nearby Miramar Marine Corps Air Station could take as long as a year.

So far, the FAA hasn't changed the approach procedures to reflect any restrictions on circling approaches at Montgomery field. Caltrans has warned Sunroad will be held liable for any accidents that might result from the building's height.

Of course, that would be of little comfort to a pilot or passenger involved in such an accident...

FMI: www.faa.gov, www.dot.state.co.us

Advertisement

More News

NTSB Final Report: Evektor-Aerotechnik A S Harmony LSA

Improper Installation Of The Fuel Line That Connected The Fuel Pump To The Four-Way Distributor Analysis: The airplane was on the final leg of a flight to reposition it to its home>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (09.15.25): Decision Altitude (DA)

Decision Altitude (DA) A specified altitude (mean sea level (MSL)) on an instrument approach procedure (ILS, GLS, vertically guided RNAV) at which the pilot must decide whether to >[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (09.15.25)

“With the arrival of the second B-21 Raider, our flight test campaign gains substantial momentum. We can now expedite critical evaluations of mission systems and weapons capa>[...]

Airborne 09.12.25: Bristell Cert, Jetson ONE Delivery, GAMA Sales Report

Also: Potential Mars Biosignature, Boeing August Deliveries, JetBlue Retires Final E190, Av Safety Awareness Czech plane maker Bristell was awarded its first FAA Type Certification>[...]

Airborne 09.10.25: 1000 Hr B29 Pilot, Airplane Pile-Up, Haitian Restrictions

Also: Commercial A/C Certification, GMR Adds More Bell 429s, Helo Denial, John “Lucky” Luckadoo Flies West CAF’s Col. Mark Novak has accumulated more than 1,000 f>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2025 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC