Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 J.W. AIRPORT NOISE 03-19-01-. A GENDA I II No. 09 03-19-01 MEETING DATE: TO' FROM' SUBJECT: MARCH 19, 2001 WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT QUARTERLY REPORTS SUMMARY: This report transmits two John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Quarterly Reports for the first and second quarters of 2000. The average noise level measured at monitoring station NMS 10N, located at Columbus Tustin Middle School, increased during , first and second quarters. Average noise levels during both quarters remained below the City, County and State criteria of 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for residential uses. RECOMMENDATION Receive and file report. FISCAL IMPACT On December 18, 2000, the City Council authorized Wieland Associates to review JWA Noise Abatement Quarterly Reports. The costs for such reviews are annually included in the Community Development Department budget. DISCUSSION Following the conclusion of each calendar quarter, John Wayne Airport prepares a Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report and transmits a copy of the report to the City of Tustin. Twice a year, the City's consultant prepares a report, which summarizes two quarterly reports. Attachment A contains the quarterly reports for the first and second quarters of 2000. Attachment B contains the summary report prepared by the noise consultant. A brief overview of the 'information contained within these attachments is as follow. Measured Noise Levels During the first quarter of 2000, the average CNEL at Remote Monitoring Station (NMS) 10N, located at Columbus Tustin Middle School was 57.3 dB. This is .4 dB City Council Meeting March 19, 2000 Page 2 more than the four previous qUarters. However, for comparison, the CNEL was .7 dB lower (56.6) during the first quarter of 1999. During the second quarter of 2000, the average CNEL was 58.0 dB. This is 1.0 dB more than the four previous quarters. For comparison, the CNEL was .7 dB lower (57.3) during the second quarter of 1999. All measured noise levels are below the City, County, and State criteria of 65 dB CNEL for residential areas. Noise Complaints During the first quarter of 2000, there were 62 Tustin area complaints compared with 28 for the same period during 1999. During the.second quarter of 2000, there were 34 Tustin area complaints compared with 42 for the same period during 1999. The number of complaints increased during the first quarter and decreased during the second quarter compared to the same period in 1999. The overall number of Complaints during the first two quarters of 2000 does not appear to correlate with the average quarterly aircraft CNEL nor with the number of quarterly jet operations at the airport. The number of jet operations peaked during first and second quarters of 2000, but the number of complaints peaked in the first quarter and dropped in the second quarter. Type and Mix of Aircraft Related to Noise Levels During the first quarter of 2000, the percentage of quieter. Class E aircraft increased and the percentage of noisier Class A aircraft decreased compared with the same period in 1999. The average CNEL for the first quarter of 2000 was slightly higher than the same period during 1999. During the second quarter of 2000, the percentage of quieter Class E aircraft increased and the percentage of noisier Class A aircraft decreased compared with the same period in 1'999. The average CNEL for the second quarter was slightly higher than the second quarter of 1999. The percentage of quieter Class E aircraft using John Wayne' Airport has increased slightly in 2000 compared to 1999. This percentage increase in Class E aircraft was offset by a decrease in the use of the noisier Class A and Class AA aircraft. Based on data from first quarter of 1999 through the second quarter of 2000, there City Council Meeting March 19, 2000 Page 3 does not appear to be any correlation between the aircraft mix and the average quarterly CNEL at NMS 10. . Airport Noise Contours A noise contour was utilized by Wieland and Associates, Inc. in preparing the attached report. This noise contour is based on the 1999 contours developed by the noise consultant for the John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement office. Using this new contour, it is estimated that in 2000 the aircraft-generated CNEL in Tustin will range from about 59 dB to less than 55 dB. This is well below the City, County, and State criteria of 65 dB for residential areas. Since noise issues are of' considerable importance to the City of Tustin, the Community Development Department will continue to monitor operations at John Wayne Airport unless otherwise directed by the City Council. Ju~tii~a Wilikom Associate Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack' Community Development Director Attachments' Al John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Quarterly Repo~s for January 1, 2000- March 31, 2000 and April 1,2000 - June 30, 2000. Review of John WaYne Airport Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Reports, 1st and 2nd Quarters 2000 (Wieland and Associates) \\COMM_DEWVOLI\SHARED\CDD-RDA\CDD~JUSTINA~JWA~JWA report to council 03-19-01 .doc Attachment A John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Quarterly Reports January 1, 2000- March 31, 2000 April 1, 2000 - June 30, 2000 .. NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT R EC E iVF ~,-,.. J U I~ 'I ,.9 298g COMMUNITY D~VLLO; For the period: January 1, 2000 through March 31, 2000 Prepared in accordance with: AIRPORT NOISE STANDARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA California Administrative Code Title 21, Chapter 2.5, SubChapter 6- Division of Aeronautics Noise Standards Submitted by- Alan Murphy // Airport Director/ John Wayne Airport, Orange County I, NTRODUCTION This is the 109th Quarterly Report submitted by the County of Orange in accordance with the requirements of the California Airport Noise Standards (California Administrative Code Title 21, Chapter 2.5, SubChapter 6' Division of Aeronautics No_ise Standards). Effective January 1, 1986, the criteria for defining "Noise Impact Area" was changed from 70 dB to 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Under this criteria, John Wayne Airport currently has a "Noise Impact Area." NOISE IMPACT SUMM~RY _ Caltrans' Aeronautics Program has established guidelines in the California State Noise Standard to control residential area noise levels produced by aircraft operations using the State's airports. Under those guidelines, residential noise sensitive areas exposed to an average Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of more than 65 dB define the "Noise Impact Area." John Wayne Airport uses ten permanent remote noise monitoring stations (NMSs) located in Newport Beach, Santa Ana, Tustin and lrvine to measure noise levels. Effective July 1, 1999, the numbers used to refer to the remote noise monitoring stations were changed. In the new numbering scheme, the letters "S" and "N" refer to the monitoring stations' location either to the south or to the north of the airport. The numbering and location of each monitor is as follows- MONITOR STATIONS Former NMS Number New NMS Number Location 1 1S 2 2S 3 3S 22 4S 21 5S 24 6S 6 7S 9 8N 8 9N 7 I0N Golf Course, 3100 Irvine Ave., Newport Beach 20152 S.W. Birch St., Santa Ana 2139 Anniversary Lane, Newport Beach 2338 Tustin Ave., Newport Beach 324 ~ Vista Madera, Newport Beach 1918 Santiago, Newport Beach 1131 Back Bay Drive, Newport Beach 17372 Eastman Street, Irvine 1300 S. Grand Avenue, Santa Ana 17952 Beneta Way, Tustin The map in Figure 1 shows the general location of each permanent remote noise monitoring station. Figure 2 shows the Airport's "Noise Impact Area" for the previous year (April 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000). The Figure 2 information was developed by Mestre-Greve Associates, Inc., in' consultation with John Wayne Airport. CNEL values measured for the period and current digitized land use information were utilized to calculate the land area acreages, number of residences and estimated number of people within the "Noise Impact Area". -1- FIGURE 1 STATION LOCATION MAP JOHN WAYNE IRPORT NGE COUNTY ' -2- NMS - NOISE MONITORING STATION FIGURE 2 0 Noise Monitors Single Family Residential '~''' ~''~m':'' ~ dB CNEL Contour ~ Multi-Family Residential STATISITICS: ~ Incompatible Land Use Area: 22.96 Acres or .035 square miles_j[_ Number of Dwellings: 119 Number of People: 298 (based on 2.5 people per dwelling unit) JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 65dB CNEL Impact Area April i999- March 2000 Mestre Grev¢ Assoviates -3- AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC SUMMARY The Airport traffic summary for this quarter is shown in Table 1 and Figure 3 below. Air Carrier operational count histories and average daily departure counts are illustrated in Tables 9 & 11. TABLE 1 LANDING AND TAKEOF~ OPERATIONS January- March 2000 Period Air Carriers GA Jet (1) Total Average Daily Jet Prop Operations (2) Jet Operations Janua~ , 7,32,5 818 , 1,079 36,301 271 February 6,9,11 733i 1,138 28,870 278 March 7,511 823 1,245 32,891 282 First Quarter ' 21,'747 2,374 3,462 98,062 277 Twelve Months 85,691 8,181 13,553 463,654 271 04/01/99 - 03/31/00 , FIGURE 3 QUARTERLY AIRPORT TRAFFIC SUMMARY (Landing and Takeoff Operations) January- March 2000 Jet Carrier 21,747 Military I 28 ! Prop Carrier l~ 2,374 GA Jet T~ 3,462 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Number of Operations NOTE: (1) Business Jet figures include a 5% factor for operations not identified by the JWA noise monitor stations. (2) Counts in this column are based upon records provided by the local FAA representatives. COMMUNITY NOISE EOUIVALENT LEVELS The monthly, quarterly and twelve month Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) average values for each monitor station are shown in Table 2, while daily CNEL values are shown in Tables 3 through 5. Insufficient data is indicated by "#N/A" entries in each table. Average Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL) values for Air Carrier and Business Jet aircraft are shown in Tables 6 through 8. -4- For the twelve month period ending March 31, 2000, 119 dwelling units in Santa Ana Heights were in the "Noise Impacted Area" (within the 65 dB CNEL contour); there was no change in the number of dwelling units in the "Noise Impacted Area" from the previous twelve month period ending December 31, 1999. The State has approved several remedies of aircraft noise levels for noise sensitive property in the "Noise Impact Area": homes can be acoustically insulated, purchased by the County, or rezoned for "other non-noise sensitive uses." As part of the County's Santa A~na Heights Land Use Compatibility Program, approximately 77 general agriculture (A-l) properties with residential land uses on Orchard, Acacia and Birch Streets were rezoned for Business Park Use in October, 1986. Each property was individually sold and subsequently converted to compatible land use. Between 1986 and 1993, 124 residences have been purchased or otherwise made compatible through the County's Purchase Assurance Program, Acoustical Insulation Program or Housing Relocation Program. In September 1993, the FAA approved a grant to fund a voluntary Accelerated Acoustical Insulation Program (AAIP) in Santa Ana Heights. (The current AAIP has been renamed "Santa Ana Heights Acoustical Insulation Program" with the acronym "SAH AIP".) During the first quarter of 2000, an additional 21 residences have been made compatible through the County's SAH AIP. A total of 267 residences in Santa Ana Heights have been purchased or otherwise made compatible through the County's Purchase Assurance Program, Housing Relocation Program, Acoustical Insulation Program or SAH AIP. TELEPHONE COMPLAINT CA.LLS (Janua..ry 1, 2000 .- Mar.ch 31, 20.00.) The Airport's Access and Noise Office receives and investigates noise calls and complaints from local citizens and all other sources. During the period January 1, 2000 through March 31, 2000, the Office received 784 complaints from citizens. This is a 119.0% increase from the 358 complaints received last quarter. It is a 212.4% increase from the 251 complaints received during the same quarter last year. Figure 4 shows the distribution of the quarterly telephone calls and complaints from local communities. FIGURE 4 HISTOGRAM BY COMMUNITY 180 .......... 156 ...................... ! 160 [ i 120 97 104 100// :1 i 80 55 60 ~ 40 27 25 33 30 24 20 0 , , Community Two households were responsible for 65% of the 97 calls from Balboa Island; one household was responsible for 87% of the 156 calls from Balboa Penninsula. -5- TABLE 2 LONG TERM MEASURED LEVELS Aircraft CNEL from 4/99 through 3/00 Values in dB at Each Site , , Period NMS Site ' ~ 1S 2S "3S 4S 5S _ 6S 7S 8:N 91~ ' 10N' Apr 1999 66.2 66.0 64.1 60.3 #N/A #N/A "'56.6 67.5 52.3 57.0 ~# Days 30 30 30 30 0 0 29 29 10 30 May 1999 66.2 66.0 ' ' 63.9i 60.8 #N/A #N/A 56.5 68.0 49.6 57.5 # Days 31 31 31 31 0 0 31 31 31 31 Jun 1999 66.8i 66.'6 64.8 60.8 #N/A #N/A 56'.2 68.2 ' 49.3~ 57.3 # Days . 30 30 30 30 0 0 27 30 30 30 Q-2 1999 66.4 66.2 64.3 60.7 #N/A #N/A 56.4 67.9 50.0 57.3 # Days 91 91 91 91 0 0 87 90 71 91 '2 J'ul 1999 66.6 66.6 65.2 61. 59.1 60.3 57.7 68.6 5118 56~7 ,# Days 31 ,31 30 28 30 31 30 29 29 30 Aug 1999 66.9 66.7 65.2, 59.5 58.9 60.0 .58.4 68.4, 50.6 57.5 # Days . 31 31 26 ,30 30 30 · 2.2 30' 29 31 Sep 1999 66.4~ 66.4 64.6 59.5 58.1 59.5 57.7 68.2 50.5 58.0 # Days 30 30 29 30 30 29 29 30 20 28 Q'3 1999 66.6 66.5 65.0 60.1 58.7 59.9 57.9 ' '68.4 51.1 57.4 # Days 92 92 85 88 90 90 81 89 78 89 Oct 1999 66.1 66.:1 64.~4 58.8 57.4 59.9 57.9 67.5 51.0 56.i # Days 31 30 31 30 31 29 27 30 22 31 , , Nov 1999 66.4 66.4 64.8 59.2 58.0i 59.5 57.2 67.7 52.9 55.71 # Days 30 29 ..30 29 30 29~ 12 28 ~ 8 29 Dec 1999 65.4 65.3 65.3 59.2 56.8 60.4 57.3 66.6 53.4 56.1 # Days 31 31 31 30 30 31 29 30 22 26 :Q-4 1999 66.0 66.0 64.9 '59.0 57.4 60.0 57.5 67.3 52.5 56.0 # Days 92 90 92 89 91 89 68 88 62 86 Jan 2000 "66.2~ '66'1 64.8 59.3 58.~ 59.9 57.01 68.0 51.7 56.6 # Day..s , 31 31 31 29 31 31 21 31 29 27 Feb 2000 66.91 66.5 65.3 59.9 59.1 60.3 57.6 68.6 52.8; 57.4 #. Days 28 28 28 25 26 23 13 16 14 18 Mar 2000 '66.7 66.4 65.1 59.9 59.2 60,6 57.~ 68.6 #N/A' 57.9 # Days 31 29 28 27 30 21 20 19 0 21 Q-1 2000' 66.6 66.3 65.0 59.7 58.8 60.2 57.4 68.3 52.1 57.3 # Days 90 88 87 81 87 75 54 66 43 66 I I I I Q-2 1999 thru Q-1 2000 ~ Total I 66-41 66.3 64.8 59.9: 58.4 60.0 57.3 68.0 51.4 57.0 # Days! ,3,65! 361 355 349; 268 254 290 333 254 332 Q-1 199l~ thru Q-4 1'999 (Previous 4 Qu~'rters) · ' ' Total I 66-31 66-01 64.6 59.8 58.7 59.8 57.1 67.7 52.1 56.9. # Days! 365! 363! 357 355 268 242 320 355 297 350: Change from Previous,4 Quarters ~_I o.nl ..o.21 0.2, '- 0.1 -0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 -0.7 0.2 ,, , -6- TABLE 3 DAILY CNEL VALES AT EACH MONITOR STATION January 2000 Date NMS Site 1S 28 38 '48' '5S 68 78 81~" '9N 10N' I 61.9 6212 61.0 59.4 56.2'- 56.3 #N/A 64.6 50.~ 55.2 2 65.5 65.7 64.6 5822 58.5 59.6 #N/^ 68.0 51.4 58.5 :3 64.~ $5.0 ~4.4 57.5 56.3 5~.$ 57.0 67.2 5:3.7 56.$ _ 4 64.2 ~4.7 O$.S 56.1 55.5 5~.2 #~/^ ~7.2 51.1 57.2 5 63.6 63.3 67.1 60.1 54.6 63.852~3 64.5 #N/A #N/A 6 64.2 64.4 63.4 58.5 54.0 59.0 54.3 65.9 53.'1 58.2 , .. . ,1 , . , ~. 7 65.4 65.5 63.4 58.8 56.4 57.8 55.6 68.1 53.2 52.8 8 63.8 64.0 61.7 55.8 54.7 56.1 58.9 65.1 52.1 57.7 , , , , , , 9 65.9 66.2 64.2 58.8 57.8 58.6 56.2 68.3 54.3 53.7 10 66.3 66.7 64.8 59.2 59.2 59.6 56.9 68.0 51.1 56.4 , i · , . .. ,. i . . .,~ ...... 11 66.5 66.9 66.2 59.4 60.3 60.4 58.1 68.8 48.6 56.2 _ . 12 66.7 67.1 65.3 61.1 59.7 61.3: 57.7 69.0 48.7 58.8 "' 13'67.1 67.3 65.4 59.8 58.5 '59.2 55.~ '67.9 51.4 ~57.2 14 66.8 67.0 64.5 57.5 57.1 58.2 56.0 67.1 54.0 5518 15 63.0 63.1 61.4 59.0 54.2 59.8 54.5 65.9 51.7 53.2 16 67.2 66.6 67.659.2 58.7 62.9 57.4 66.6 48.2 55.2 17 67.8 67.6 65.6 59.8 58.559.9 57.9 67.9 53.5 54.9 18 66.9 68.0 64.9 58.6 58.4 61.5 56.5 68.3 50.4 56.3 19 66.3 65.6 64.5 58.8 59.2 59.7 56.5 68.8 51.6 56.9 20 66.9 67.2 65.4 59.3 '59.6 60.9 #N/^ 69.6 47.5 #N/^ 21 67.5 67.1 65.4 61.3 59.2 60.2 58.1 69.5 45.9 58.1 22 65.1 65.1 63.5 60.1 57.2 58.0 57.9 65.9 50.9 55.3 . , .... 23 67.2 67.1 65.3 58.6 58.9 59.7 59.2 68.8 55.8 55.2 24 66.7 66.8 64.5 58.7 58.5 59.1 #N/~ 68.2 51.2, 55.3 25 66.7 66.6 65.3 60.2 58.6 59.2 57.1 69.5 46.5 #N/A 26 67.0 66:3 64.8 #N/A 59.1 59.5 57.0 69.3 #N/A 58.1 27 67.3 67.1 65.5 #N/~ 59.2 60.0 #N/^ 69.4 54.3 57.8 28 67.9 66.7 65.5 60.8 59.5 60.9 #N/A 69.2 53.4 57.9 · 29 64.3 63.6 62.2 57.0 56.7 56.8 #N/^ 66.3 49.2 55.5 30 66.2 65.8 64.4 61.4 59.3 60.0,#N/A 69.3 46.8 #N/A 31 67.3 65.2 65.2 59.8 59.9 60.6 #N/~ 69.2 48.5 58.0 i iii i ~111 i i i iii i i ii Days 31 31 3.1 29 3! .31 21 .31 29 27 En.Avg 66.2 ~6.1 64.8 59.3 58.2 59.9 57.0 68.0 51.7 56.6 #N/A indicates insufficient data. -7- TABLE 4 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION February 2000 Date NMS-Site ' 1S 2'8 ' '3S 4S 5S SS 7S 8N 9N 1 ON 1 66.8 66.5 64.3 59.7 58.2 60.3 57.3 67.9 54.5 54.2 2 66.0 65.6 67.2 57.1 56.6 62.8 57.2 65.6 #N/A 56.3 , , , , , 3 65.5 65.2. 63.6 58.3 57.0 58.1 57.0 68.2 55.7 54.5 4 66.1 65.8 64.3 59.858.3 60.0 #N/A 72.2 52.8 #N/A, , , 5 64.3 64.0 63.1 57.5 '56.7 57'3 56.9 65.8 #N/A 56.7 6 66.8' 66.2 68.0 58.4 58.8 63.3 #N/A 66.3 53.4 54~7 7 67.1 66.6 64.8 58.3 57.9 58.4 58.2 68.7 #N/A 58.5 __ i ...1 i, , Il . . 8 66.5 66.0 65.1 60.5 58.8 60.4 #N/A 68.6, 53.8 #N/A 9 67.1 67.1 65.5 60.1 58.8 59.9 #N/A #N/Al 51.8 59.7' 10 66.4 66.6 64.5 60.4 59.3 59.6 56.9 #N/A 52.2 #N/A .11 67.3 6..6.665.9 61.4 6,1.4 61.5 #N/A 69.6. 52.7 58.6 12 66.4 65.5 64.4 #N/A, #N/A #N/A #N/A 68.4~ #N/A #N/A . u i . 13 68.2 67.6 66.360.7 59.4 60.2 57.6 #N/A 48.3 #N/A ~ i . ! ~. . .. 14 66.4 66.3 64.6 60.0; 59.2 59.6 #N/A #N/A 50.1 58.7 15 67.1 67.1 65.7 60.4 59.7 60.4 58.2 #N/A #N/A 58.3 _ ! ... .i . ........ 16 66.9 67.8 65.4 61.3 59.7 #N/A #N/A #N/A 51.1 #N/A- . . .., 17 68.7 66.7 67.3 60.4 61.6 61.9 58.7 #N/A #N/A 58.8 18 68.5 67.9 65.9 #N/A 59.1 60.4 57.3 68.6 #N/A 53.8 19 60.1 60.3 60.6 58.7 51.6 55.5 56.0 67.0 #N/A 55.8 " 20 "67.3.... 67.1 64.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/'A #N/A '#N/A "#N/A ~ 21 #N/A #N/A #N/,~ #N~A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A: ~ , ~ i ,, ,, i , , i , , 22 67.0 66.6 65.3 60.5 59.4 60.4 #N/A: 69.4 #N/A 5910 23 67.2 67.2 64.9 60.8 60.4 60.7 #N/A #N/A #N/Al #N/A 24 67.8 67.4 65.7 61.5 59.8 #N/A #N/A 69.2 53.6 58.2 25 68.8 67.9 66.2 61.0 60.3 61.2 #N/A #N/A 52.7 #N/A 26 65.7 64.5 64.2 59.0 57.8 58.8 58.9 68.6 #N/A 53.2 · . =, ,i i i i .... . . _ 27 66.3 66.0 64.4 60.1 59.4 59.8 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 28 67.2 66.7 65.1 59.7 59.4 60.2 57.6 69.3 51.8 58.1 '" 29 66.9 67.0 65.2 59.3 59.:7 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 58.9 i ii ii i i i i .Days 28 28 28 25 26 23 13 16,. 14 18 En.AVg 66.9 66.5 65.3 59.9 59.1 60.3.,., 57.6 68.6, 52.8 57~4 #N/A indicates insufficient data. -8- TABLE 5 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION Mamh 2000 "' Date .... NMI~-Sit~ ...... 1S 2S 3S 4S" ' 5S 6S 7S 8N gN' :ION · 1'66.9 67.0 65.8 61.4..... l~0.0 '6018 #N)A #N/A #N/A 56.4 2 66.8 66.2 65.0 60.5 59.5 60.3 57.0#N/A #N/A 57.1 3 67.6 67.1 #N/A #N/A 60.7 #N/A #N/A 68.8 #N/A #N/A ~ ,.63.7'63.6 ..62.7 57.7 57.0 59.1 57.2 68.8 .#N/.A. ,.59~1 5 66.9 66.8 65.8 #N/A 61.0 #N/A #N/A 68.5 #N/A #N/A , , 6 65.5 65.0 64.5 59.1 58.1 59.9 56.8 68.6 #N/A: 5~J3, 7 65.6 65.5 64.4, 60.0 58.7 59.5 #N/A 69.4 #N/A #N/A, , . i ~ ,. . . . 8 67.3 67.1 65~3 61.4 60.3 61.2,#N/A 69.2 #N/A #N/A; 9 67.0 67.0 65.4 60.3 59.7 #N/A 58.2 69.1 #N/A~ 5815 10 68.2 ~.N/A...66.159.6,..60.6;60.5 57.6 69.5 #,N/A 55.9 11 65.0 65.5 63.9 57.7 59.1 57.9 57.2 68.2 · #N/A 53.9 12 66.8 66.3 64.8 60.3 58.659.9 5'8.4#N/A #N/A 59.6 13 66.2 i55.9 64.'3 59.6 58.5 59.4~ ~;8.7~N/A #N/A #N/A ~' ' 14 67.2 67.2 65.7 59.6 58.9 60.2' 58.7 ~N/A #N/A #N~A 15 67.7 67.0, 66.1 60.7 60.5 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 16 67.7'66.9 65.6 60.8 58.8 60.3 59.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A 17 68,1 #N/A 66.5 61.7 59.7 61.0 58.5 68.7 #N/A 58.9 18 66.4 66.4 64.5 61.1 58.1 #N/A 55.9 67.1 #N/A 55.6 19 67.4 66.8 65.4 #N/A 59.3 62.1 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 20 64.1 62.5 #N/A 57.0 55.1 63.5 54.3 63.1 #N/A 58.8 21 63.8 64.0 .63.2 58.3 #N/A #N/A 57.0 #N/A #N/A 58.6 22 66.6 66.5 64.7 60.9 58.9 60.4 58.4 68.5 #N/A 57.2 ....... , .... ,, - __ 23 6628 67.3 65.4 59.6 59.0 60.5 57.4 #N/A #N/A 59.5 "' 24 67.3 67.'6 ~N/A 59.3 59.5 60.5 58.6 69'i"1 #N/A'-58.7 ...25 65.6 .,64.9 63.7. 58.1 57.7 61.5 #N/A ~N/A .~N/A 55..4 26 67.1 67.2 65.5 59.8 59.3' #N/A 57.3 #N/A, #N/A 57.5 , ,1 I i il ,, ii i i, 1 , I 27 67.6 67.1 65.8 60.2 59.6, 60.8 #N/A 69.1 #N/A 58.7 28 66.5 67.6 65.0 60.1 59.0 60.6 57.5 68.4 #N/A 59.2 29 66.2 66.4 64.6' 60.9 59.3 #N/A #N/A 69.0 #N/A #N/A 30 67.4 67.4 65.8 #N/A 59.5 #N/A #N/A 69.0 #N/A 58.5 , ~ , 31 65.0 65.6 64.9 58.0 5710 #N/A 57.1 67.7 #N/A 57.4 · iiii i i ii i i ii i i i i i i Days 31 29 28 27, 30 21 20 19 21 En..Avg 66'.7.... 66.4' '6.5..1 59.9 5'~.2.60.6 57.7 68.6 .....5'.7.9 #N/A indicates insufficient data. -9- TABLE 6 MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS Commercial Class A January- Uamh 2'000 Carrier AC Type # Del~s NMs Site " ' 1S 2S 3S 4s 5s '6s 7s 8N 9N 10N ~~'=='"='~~~'~'~'~~'~'~=.=.~'~'~ 86.='===~ 84."'='=~=~,~==~, 79.~='=,,~ ~ Count (345) (333)(345)(340)(347)(345) (343) (16), (11) (11) America West A32~ 2"'"'~Averag"'"'"'~ 94."'"'~93.'"'"~92.""~ 86."'-~ 85.-"-'~85.'"'"~82.'"'"'~ 90."'""~ #N'"-~ 79.'"'"'~ Count (18) (16) (18)i (16) (18) (17) (17)~ (2) (0) (2) B7373 18 Average 93.8 94.1 90.8 85.4 85.6 86.4 83.7 89.0 #N/,~ 79.5 Count. (15) (14) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (3) (0) (1) B757 62 Average 94.2 94,9 91.2 85.7 85.2 85.1 82.3 88.8 #N/A 79.1 _ J ..... iCount (56)i (49) (56) (54)~ (54) (53) (54) (6) (0) (5) Aff~erican B757 278 Average 92.0 92.0 90.5 85.2 84.9 86.0 84.0 89.41 80.4 78.3 Count (258) (246) (256) (255) (250) (253) (247), (16) (3) (4) ~MD80 632Average 99.1 99.1 98.2 92.1 92.4 93.1 90.6 99.6 86.3 85.7' Count (554) (492) (556) (549) (553) (554)! (540) (58) (52) (40) 'MDS0 9 Avel:~ge 87.3 '87.6 86.1 80.7 80.4 80.7 80.2 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (9) (9) (9) (8) (8)' (9) (3) (0) (0)i (0) Continental B7373 322,1Average 95.3 94.5 93.2 87.6 86.9' 87.9 85.0 93.'"""~ 81.'"'~ 81."~'~ _ ~Count (282), (265) (284) (278), (284) (282) (276) (32) (24) (23) B737/ 237 Average 94.8' 94.2 91.9 85.6 85.1 86.0 83.6 94.6, 82.0 80.7 Count (196) (185) (196) (193) (195) (193) (193) (38) (23) (22) '~'~'~'="'~~B75'"'"~ 26'"'""~Averag~ 94.'"~'~ 94."'""~ 92."'"'~ 86.'"'"~ 85."""~ 86.~ 82.~: 90.""--'~ 78.~ 80.'"'"--~ _ Count (235) (225) (234)1 (233) (236) (234) (~P9) (23) (9) (10) FedEx ' A300 3 Average 93.8 93.8 92.0 88.2 87.3 87.8' 84.0 #N/A #N/.~ #N]A Count (3) (3) (.3) (3) (3).. (3) (3) (0) (0) (0) , A310 60 Average 98.4 97.9 96.3 91.2 90.6; 91.4 88.4 91.8 85.9 #N/A rCount (58) (56) (58) (57) (58) (58) (57) (2) (1) (0) ~4°rthwesi A320 397 Average 95,3~ 9~.9 92.9 87.8 85.9 86.6 83.4 93.4 85.0 82.3 Count (348) (325) (350) (342)' (353) (346) (337) (36)i (14) (18) Southwest B7373 180 Average 94.0 93.8 90.7 §5.5 85.7 86.5 85.0 '91.6: 82.0 SO.Si Count (168) (159) (167) (166) (168) (167) (166) (10) (10) (8) B7377 3 Average 90.8 90.9' 86.9 87.4 82.1 82.8 80.1 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (3) (3) (3)' (2) (3) (3) (3) (0) (0) (0) ~B75'~'~-== 14'-'="=-~Averag='"===="~= 92.='"='"~ 91."'~ 89.'"--'~ 83.'="'"~ 82.='"==~ 83."='==~' 80.='='~ 88.'-"=~ 81.~ 78.-'=--~ Count (123) (117) (124) (120) (122) (1~)?) (116) (15) (7) (10) ~ID80 117 Average 99.6 99.2 97.1 89.5 90.2 92.2 90.5 100.3 84.7 86.5 Count (105) (100) (105) (105) (106) (105) (102) (10) (9) (7) Uni{ed " A320 46Average 91.7 91.4 90.7 8~.1 84.7 85.9 83.8 88.2 80.7 80.3 ~Count (4.1)i (40) (41) (41) (41): (40) (42) (3) (2)I (.2) ~B7373 . 79Average 94.8' 94.1 92.5 86.8 86.0~ 86.8 83.9 93.5 81.8 82.0 Count (61) (58) (60) (59): (61) (61) (60) (15) (14) (12) B757 41 Average 93.3 92.9 '90.9 84.5~ 84.9 85.6 83.6 90.7 #N/A 80.9 Count (36) (33) (35) (35)i (36) (35) (34) (5) (0) (4) UP~ B757 65 Average 93.8 94.0 91.1 85.9 85.1 86.3 83.3 86.1 #N/A #N/A Count (60) (59) (59) (57) (58) (58) (56) (2) (0) (0) US Airways A319 180 Average 94.4 "9~.4 93.6 '86.9 85.4 86.8 85.3 91.7 84.0 81.6 Coun, t (153) (142). (156) (149) (155) ,(155) (153) (23) (9) (15) -10- TA~LF 7 M~ASU~D AVENGE SINGLE EVE~ NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS Commercial Class AA January- March 2000 ~3arrier' ' AC Typ~' # Deps ....... NMS Site ' ' "lS 2S 3S 4'~" 5S ..... 6S 'tS 8N ~N I 10N J I II III 21 II I Alaska Air E~7374"' 178Average 93.0. ~3.'1 89.8 84.6 85.81 85,0 85.1' 91. 82.2 81.8 .... Count (156). (152) (156) (154) (157!. (156) (152) (14) (12) (10) Amedca West A320 232Average '91.3 9'~'.4 89.2 85.0 83.7 83.'7 80.7 86.6 81.1 81~6i Count I218) (209) (219) (213) (212) (215) (14.8.) (12) (3.).. (5). B7373 63'1 A~erag~''' 93.7 93.5 90.6 85.4 85.2 85.8 83.4 90.4 80.9 81.0 Count (566)~ (547) (568)_ (562) (575) (566) (565) (45) (36) (35) B757 ' 1 Average~ 90.4 90.2 87.2 83.3 #N/A 79.4 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (1) (1) (1) (1) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) Amedca'~ B757 t~20.~,ve~age ~"~'i'4 91.4 90.0 84.9 '1~.6 85.4 83.4' ~1~.6 83.8 79.4 Count (743) (701) (745) (734~ (729) !741.) (718) (54) (30) (31) MD90 47 Average 88.9 88.7 87.0 82.1 80.0 81.6 79.5 89.4 81.6 80.4 Count (40) (39) (41) (39) (35) (39) (29) (5)i (4) (2) ~Continer{t~l B737'~ 91 Average 92;5 92.5 89.4 84,9 83.5 '84.2 8216 91.1 '79.1 82.3 Count (86) (79) (84) (84) (86) (84) (83) (5) (2) (2) "D~lta' ~iibgd .... 345 Average ' '{)1,8 91.3 '" 8{)'i'~t82.4 82.5 84.1 81.7 ' 89.8, 87.0 79.4 Count (327) (319) (328) (295) (293) (324) (298) (15) (4) (8) .......... !~So~t'hwest B7373 186 Average 93.4 93.4 90.2 85.3 85.5 86.1 83.1 90.9. 81.6 80.0 Count .!..174)(167) (1..74) (172) (176) (173) (173) (8) (7) (6) B7377' 2 Average 90.6 91.0 86.5 81.6 82.7 83.0 79.7 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (0) (0) (0) United ' A320 215 Average '91.~ ..... 91.490.6 85.7 84,5-- 85.9 85.5 -89.4 85.6 80.5~ Count (197) (188) (199) (194) (200) (200) (195) .(12) (6) .(5) B757 222 Average 92.3 92.3 89.4 83.2 83.3 84.6 82.9 91.6. 85.3 80.9 Count (199) (184) (197) (194) (197) (197) (197) (20) (8) (9) ...... ==11 ! i i i ii M]EASURED AVENGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS Commercial Glass E ,January- March 2000 Carrie~: ' AC :l'yp~# Deps .................. NMS Site ..... 58 ' zs i.~.laSka ~ir' B7374 ' ' 62 Average 90.9 9~.3 88,2~.~' '"85;0 84,0 81,9 91.9 80.8 81.0 Count (57) (57) (57) (58! (58) (58) (56) (4) (2) (3) B~377 672Average 8'§.4 ~9.6 86.7 82.6' 83.0 82.6 80.6 88.5 81.7 80.5 Count (634) (609) (633) (623)_i (638) .(632) .(613) (33) (8) (8) America=~est B73'73 ''757 Average 91.7 91.8 89.0 84,7' 84.3 84.6 82.4! 89.0 83.2 79.7. Count (718)' (696).. (712) (699) (705)_(710) (691) (32) (12) (.1...6)' Amedca'n" B75~' '173 Average 90.2 90.0 89.1 84.2 83.7 84.6 82.4 86.9 86.6 83.1 Count _ (163) (154) .(!59) (157) (1_58) (162) (156) (6) (3) (1)_ MD90 8II[Average 87.7 87.8 86.5 81.5 80.3 81.3 80.6 87.5 81.8 78.9 Count (739) (710) (738) (701) (608) (721) (478) (58) (18) (12) '~'elta ' MD90 '1~3Average"'91.2 90.7 88.7'"81.'4 8'~.4 83.~~ '80.9 t~9.4 ~;9.3 79.5 Count (155) (148) (155): (136) (122) (156) (136) (15) (1) (10) ........ §(~'~J~'l~west ' B73~3 "' 8~8Avemge 91.5 91.6 89:0 84.5 84.8 85.1 82.3 90.1 81.6 80.8 Count (7.72) (742) (763) .(760)! (768)! (767) (755) (46) (20) (24) B7377 .... 28 Average 89.2 90.0 85.5 81.4 81.5 81.3 81.5 87.0 #N/A 79.3 Count (26) ,(2,6) (26) (22) (25) (25) (19)~ (2) (0) (1) united-" B757 .... 767 A~r~ge '90.8 90.9 88.2 83.0 82.2 ~3.'6 83.3 87.3 "§3.2 77.9 ......... Co,unt ,_ (721,,) (688),j(715) (691) (695,) (712) (704) (39)i (15) (14) -11- TABLE 8 MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS Commuter January- Mamh 2000 'Ca'r'rier 'AC Type # Deps ......... NMS Site ' ' ' lS' 2S 3~ ' 4S "5S" 6S 7S 8N 9N 10N I I I I I i SkyWest '~;L60 94 Average 85.3 83.9 8~.3 78.8 79.1 80.5 78.9 85.3 77.5 8~4.5 Count (79) (78) ,(78) (42), (28) .... (76); (11) (8) (,1,) (3) E120 1185Average 81.1 83.2 82.1 83.6 83.5 79.4 80.7 81.8 '79.1 79.5 Count (1104) (1058) (1089) (135) (791) (988) (120) (52) (9) (5) I I III I II I IIII · · MEASURED AVERAGE SING~ EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS General Aviation " January- March 2000 .. Carrier AC Type # Deps NMS Site iS 2S 3S 4S 5S " 6S 7S 8N 9N' 10N III I II I J I General Aviation ,Jet 1649 Average 90."~5 89.7 91.0 85;6 85.1 85.5 84.~ 8~.~ 80.6 ~0.0 . , Count (!395,,) (132,5) !1391) (90,7) (854) (125,4,! (690) (90) (10) (21) -12- TABLE 9 AIR CARRIER OPERATIONAL HISTORY Carrier ' AC Type' " Year " 1996 '1997 ~J998 19§9' 200~ II ! III II I I I I II II1! Alaska Air AS B~3'~4 , ,, 8,798 7,718, 7,795 7,237 1,222 B7377 ' 1,090 1,345 MD80 ~20 ' 4 ..... - i ~11 i ii iml i America West AW A319 - 112 1 A320 780 6 '509 1,059 36~~ · B7373 15,284 14'152 11,917: '11,986;2,818' !B757 858 1,332 205 z~64 126 American ,J,A' B737~ ........... 2 B757 ' 8,542i" 8,970 ~,329 8,145 2,554 MD80 926 610 1,~19 2,285 1,270 MD90 3,19'1' 1,742 C0r~tinental CO B73~3il) 2,786 2,71.0 " ~.20 24 B7375 (1) . .. 1,995 2,0.61 64.2. B7377 " 868 2,491 658 =,, , , B7378 16 B757 ~59 724 298 ' MD80 4 Delta DL B7373 ~14 " 2 ...... B757 1,452 2,202 2,'J17: 1,585 ' 521- k;1D90 2,944 '3,058 §,836, 4,218"' 'J',038. FedEx Fa fA300 16 18 1;~ 20: 6 ~A310" 484' 486 ~,96 '487 '120~ NorthWest NW A3:19 ....... 9 76 A320 3;502 3,408 3,219 3,486 718 ,, , , , , ,,, B757 2 R(~fioAir' "QQ MD80 4,0~2 4,~00 4,246 2,622' ,, MD90 4,026 5,680 5,744 5,083' S(~uthwest 'WN" B7373 (1) '~,91'8 91'~6 2,986~ 1,358 3~2 B7375(1) 6,689 8,234 2,0:1'8 B7377 2 129 66 ,TW/( " TW B7~'7 406, 1,242 1,139 1,174 '283 ~MD~O 1,440 848 986 894~ ' 234' ~lnit~d UA A319 (2) " 749. '1,035 !65 A32.0(2) .. 2,52.4. 2,024 1.;816 1,196 356 · B7373 (1) 1,332~ 836 503 791 157 , ,,=, , , B7375 (1) 2 55 B757 7,766 8,274 8,617 8,'290 2;059 0PS "' 5X B757 504 476 500 5d2 130 USAirways US A31'{) ~55.~ 360 , , A320 1 'B7373 842 i,444 1,456 · , i,,B757 " 616 " , ,, i, , (2) Counts that separate B7373 and B7375 aircraft operations began in 1998. Counts that separate A319 and A320 aircraft operations began in 1998. -13- TABLE 10 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL HISTORY Aircraft' Year .... 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ' " '1 ' " ~0" ' " A300 16 8 12 6 A31'0 ' ~,84 486 496 487 120 A319 (:1) ' 74'9 2,111..7.38 .A320(1) 6,80.6 5,438 5,544~ 5,752 1,443 B7373 (2) 30,776 28,990 17,582 14,641 3,3..47 B7374 81798 7,718 7,795 7,237 1,222 B7375 (2) " , ,8,686, 10,350 2,660 B737.7 870 3,710 2,069 , B7378 18 B757 20,805 23,~¢::,0 21,'205 20,160 5,673 ........ MD80 6,662 5,662 6,351 5,801 1,504 Ml~90 6,~70 8,738 9,580 12,492 2,780 .... (1) Counts that separate A319 and A320 aircraft operations began in 1998. (2) Counts that separate B7373 and B7375 aircraft operations began in 1998. FIGURE 5 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL HISTORY ,5,000 ~0,000 '5,000 :0,000 5,000 0,000 5,000 O, A300 A310 A319 A320 B7373 B7374 B7375 B7377 B7378 B757 MD80 MD90 By Year i~11996 B1997 I-11998 Ir'! 1999 il2,°°° -14- TABI~ 11 AIR CARRIER AVERAGE DAILY DEPARTURE HISTORY Car~ier Ab TYPe . '" ' Year " 1996 199¥' 1998 1999 2000 AiaskaAir ,~,S B~374 ~2.019 10.~573 10,682 '9:921 6.7~"4 87377 .... - ' i,490~ 7.396 Mb80 0.301 0.005 ' ' ' /~meriCa ~v'e~:[ 'AW A319 ...... 0.151 ' 0.7~ A320 1.066 (3.008 0.688 1.:452i 2.033 87373 "' 2o.i38b '19.386 16.351 16.425 '15.462, 8757 '' 1,172 1.8~5 0.279 0.630 0.692 _ ~ ii i ii i i ii American 87378 0.003 8757 .....11.669 12'.;3'~8'11.397 1 ~j.159 14.022 "MD8~J 1.265 0'.836 1.551 3.i48 7.000 , ,i ~,, MDg0 4.359 9.560 Contin'ental CO ~87373(1) 3.806 3.712 0.984 87375(1) ' '2.742' 2.844 3.538 !87377 1.184 3.392 3.604 .... , ,, 87378 0.022 8757 0,900 '0.992 0.408' ' , i ,,, ,, .... , ,, , , l, MD80 0.005, Delt~ ..... DE 87~73 0,839i '0.003 '" 8757-" 1.984' 3,0i6 2.8~'9 2.175 2.868 MD90 " 4,022 4.189 5.249 5.775 5.692 FedEx i~M A3~)0" 0~2~ 0.025 0'.016 0.027 0.033 ~310 0,661 0.666 0.6~9 0.668 "0.659 No~l~west ' NW A319 ' 0.014 01418 ~320 4.~84 4.668 4.408 4.775 '3.945 8757" 0.~03 " ' Reno Air "(~Q' 'MBS0 5,563 5.753 5.~30 3.597 MD90 5.50(5' 7.781 7.860 6.964 S°U~i~west WN 8737:~ (T) 13.549 '~3~,88 4.0~8 ' 1.860 2.044 B.'7375 (1) ,, '"' 9.167 11.~96 11.08~ 87377 "0.003 0.1"~8 0.363 TWA ' TW 8757 0.,~5.~ '1.70~1 1',564 1.627 1.549 'Mb80 1.967 1;162 "' 1.345 1.208 1.286 i i · "united UA A..319 (2) 1;0§0 '1.411 0.912 A320(2) ;~.44t~' 2.773' 2.488 1.647 1.956 87373. I1) 1.820 1.14.5 0.688 1.082 0.868; 87375 (1) 0.003 0'~016 8757 lO.~jb~ 11 ~334 11 '.803 1 i .4411'1.31 9 uPs" 5x B~57~'' 0.68~ '0.652 0.6§51 0.688 0.714 OS Airways OS ..... A319 ..... 1.310 1.978 A320 0.014 87373 ' 1'.150 1..978 1.995 0.660 .... ,, , 8757 0.842 iii i i i ii i i (1) Counts that separate B7373 and B7375 aircraft operations began in 1998. (2) Counts that separate A319 and A320 aircraft operations began in 1998. -15- NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Date: February 23, 2000 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Eddie Martin Building AGENDA ITEMS AND ITEMS DISCUSSED: ...... 1..Recent Chang.es '.tO.. Airoort M.an. agement John Leyerle announced that Alan L. Murphy had been appointed the new Airport Director effective January 14, 2000. Loan Leblow, who had formerly served as the Interim Airport Director, will now assume the duties of Assistant Airport Director. 2. Allocations for 2000-2001 Plan Year iii i · · · John Leyerle gave a brief summary of the capacity allocation process. He explained that operations at John Wayne Airport are limited and controlled by the Phase II Access Plan. The Access Plan provides for the fair and equitable distribution of operational capacity among the incumbent airlines and new entrants, to the extent that capacity is available. The allocation process for' the 2000-01 Plan Year began in Fall of 1999 and culminated in the presentation of the proposed capacity distribution to the JWA Airport Commission and the Board of Supervisors for their approval. The Board of Supervisors approved the airport's allocation recommendations on February 8, 2000. These allocations provide capacity to ten commercial passenger canSers, two cargo carders, and one commuter carder. There is currently one airline on the new entrant waiting list. The approved plan allocates 39 Class A daily departures, 34 Class AA daily departures and seat capacity to support the Class A and Class AA operations, in addition to approximately 59 Class E daily depamn:es by the commercial air carders. Based on the capacity allocated, it is expected that John Wayne Airport will serve around 8 million passengers in the 2000-2001 Plan Year. 3. Airport Statistics Bonnie Streeter gave an update on the Febmary 2000 statistics. She noted that during the month of February there were increases in passengers, air cargo tonnage, air carrier, air taxi and military operations over February 1999 figures. Total operations and general aviation operations showed decreases compared to February 1999 levels. -16- Noise Abatement Committee Meeting Continued 4. Recent Board-a roved revisions to the General Aviation Noise Ordinance John Leyerle explained that as part of the recent installation and acceptance of the new John Wayne Airport. aircraft operations and noise monitoring system, new noise monitoring equipment had been installed at the ten permanent noise monitoring station locations. In order tO determine the impact of this new equipment, a side-by-side test was conducted for a period of one year that compared noise levels simultaneously recorded by the new and old noise monitors. Analysis of the results of this test revealed differences in the noise levels recorded by the new and old monitors ranging from 0 dB - 1.1 dB at the various stations. These differences necessitated changes in the maximum permitted noise limits at the noise monitoring stations tO ensure continued fair implementation of the noise restrictions imposed by the Access Plan and the General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANO). On April 13, 1999, the Board of Supervisors acknowledged the need for these technical adjustments and approved changes to the Access Plan noise limits for Class A} Class AA and Class E operations. The Board approved similar adjustments to the GANO noise limits on February 1, 2000. In addition to changes in the noise limits, other amendments to the GANO were made, including modification of the language defining a decibel and an expanded description of the administrative hearing process. 5. S~tatus of the Santa Ana Heights Aconsticg! Insulation Program Carl Braatz provided an update on the stares of the Santa Aha Heights Acoustical Insulation Pro.am (SAIl AIP). Carl explained that the SAH AIP accomplishes a reduction in the interior noise for participating homes within the 65 dB CNEL impact area. This reduction in noise is assessed by pre- and post-construction noise meaSurements conducted by Wyle Labs of E1 Segundo. In the last four years of the SAH AIP, insulation has been completed on a 32-unit apartment complex and two groups of ten homes each. A Notice of Completion was recorded for a group of 22 homes at the end of December 1999. Another NOtice of Completion has just been filed for 21 more homes, and will be recorded within a month. Construction is underway for another group of 21 homes, with completion expected in mid-April 2000. A 182-unit apartment building is in the design stage along with a group of 33 homes. JWA acquired responsibility for this program in 1996. The Environmental Management Agency previously administered the acoustical insulation program for a number of years and insulated 90 homes during that time. Of the 500 homes within the program's impact area, approximately 125 eligible properties now remain to be insulated. Noise Abatement Committee Meeting Continued 6. Update on the Airport Noise..Monitor.ing System John Leyerle related a brief summary of the process that led to the recent installation of the new Total Airport Management Information System (TAMIS). JWA hired Tracor Applied Sciences of Austin, Texas (now BAE SYSTEMS) to design and install a comprehensive aircraft operations and noise monitoring system at a cost of $1.4 million to increase automation of JWA's enforcement of the Access Plan and GANO. The TAMIS system was accepted on August 31, 1999, and is currently in a one-year warranty period. The airport is in the process of obtaining a maintenance and support services contract for the new system, and is hoping to acquire these services from BAE SYSTEMS. 7. Any Addi, tional Ouestions Q. Toni Callaway requested the names and addresses of the air carders operating at TWA. She explained that she intends to write to each of the carders regarding low flying aircraft over her home. A. John Leyefie a~eed to provide this information. 8. Next Meetin~ D..ate The date for the next quarterly Noise Abatement Committee meeting will be announced by letter approximately two weeks before the meeting. -18- ,N,,AC ROST.ER February 23, 2000 NAME ORGAN~ATION Paul Seifert Continental Airlines Toni M. Callaway North Tustin resident Ann Gill John Wayne Airport Rita Westfield City of Tustin Carl Braatz John Wayne Airport Jeremy Irish America West Airlines Bob Aldrich County of Orange Planning Srikanth Ranganathan America West Airlines Dave Scott America West Airlines Clarice Balzer Southwest Airlines Joseph Wright City of Anaheim Paul Bums America West Airlines John Harris City of Irvine John Leyerle John Wayne Airport John Escobedo John Wayne Airport Ramey Gonzalez John Way-ne Airport Doffs Mays John Wayne Airport Bonnie Streeter John Wayne Airport -19- RECEIVED AU6 1 5 ZOO0 ADMINISTRATION NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT · For the period: April 1, 2000 through June 30, 2000 Prepared in accordance with: AIRPORT NOISE STANDARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA California Administrative Code Title 21, Chapter 2.5,'SubChapter 6: Division of Aeronautics Noise Standards Sub 'tted by: Alan L. Murphy ~ Airport Director John Wayne Airport,. Orange County ....... FIGURE :2 ........ 0 Noise Monitom Single Family Residential · ,..~ .... 65 dB CNEL Contour ~ Multi-Family Residential STATISITICS: Incompatible Land Use Area: 23.10 Acres or .036 square miles Number of Dwellings: 119 Number of People: 298 (based on 2.5 people per dwelling unit) I I Il ! · . JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 65dB CNEL Impact Area July 1999 - June 2000 Mestre Greve A as oeio~es III I I I I I i Iiii[ ill I Il AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC SUMMARY The Airport traffic summary for this quarter is shown in Table 1 and Figure 3 below. Air Carrier operational count histories and average daily departure counts are illustrated in Tables 9 & 11. TABLE 1 LANDING AND TAKEOFF OPERATIONS April- June 2000 Period Air Carriers GA Jet (1) Total Average Daily , Jet ,Prop Operations (,2) Jet Operations April 7,229 852 1,182 , 32,227 280 May 7,348 885 1,157 33,373 274 June 7,126 854 "i,136 32,854 275 Second Quarter ~1,703 "2',591 3,475 ' ' 98,454 277 Twelve Months 86,888 9,185 13,505 439,003 274 ,07/01/99 - 06/30/00 , FIGURE 3 QUARTERLY AIRPORT TRAFFIC SUMMARY (Landing and Takeoff Operations) April- June 2000 Jet Carder Military 67 Prop Carder 12,591 GA Jet GA Other 3,475 21,703 69,880 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Number of Operations NOTE: (1) Business Jet figures include a 5% factor for operations not identified by the JWA noise monitor stations. (2) Counts in this column are based upon records provided by the local FAA representatives. COMMUNITY NOISE EOUIVALENT LEVELS The monthly, quarterly and twelve month Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) average values for each monitor station are shown in Table 2, while daily CNEL values are shown in Tables 3 through 5. Insufficient data is indicated by "#N/A" entries in each table. Average Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL) values for Air Carder and Business Jet aircraft are shown in Tables 6 through 8. For the twelve month period ending June 30, 2000, 119 dwelling units in Santa Ana Heights were in the _ "Noise Impacted Area" (within the 65 dB CNEL contour); there was no change in the number of dwelling units in the "Noise Impacted Area" from the previous twelve month period ending March 31, 20O0. The State has approved several remedies of aircraft noise levels for noise sensitive property in the "Noise Impact Area": homes can be acoustically insulated, purchased by the County, or rezoned for "other non-noi'se sensitive uses." As part of the County's Santa A_na Heights Land Use Compatibility Program, approximately 77 general agriculture (A-l) properties with residential land uses on Orchard, Acacia and Birch Streets were rezoned for Business Park Use in October, 1986. Each property was individually sold and subsequently converted to compatible land use. Between 1986 and 1993, 124 residences have been purchased or otherwise made compatible through the County's Purchase Assurance Program, Acoustical Insulation Program or Housing Relocation Program. In September 1993, the FAA approved a grant to fund a voluntary Accelerated Acoustical Insulation Program (AAIP) in Santa Ana Heights. (The current AAIP has been renamed "Santa Ana Heights Acoustical Insulation Program" with the acronym "SAH AIP".) During the second quarter of 2000, no additional residences were made compatible through the County's SAH AIP. A total of 267 residences in Santa Ana Heights have been purchased or otherwise made compatible through the County's Purchase Assurance Program, Housing Relocation Program, Acoustical Insulation Program or SAH AIP. TELEPHONE COMPLAINT CALLS (Ap.m_ 1, 2000- June 30, 2,,000) The Airport's Access and Noise Office receives and investigates noise calls and complaints from local citizens and all other sources. During the period April 1, 2000 through June 30, 2000, the Office received 721 complaints from citizens. This is a 8.3% decrease from the 786 complaints received last quarter. It is a 109.0% increase from the 345 comPlaints received during the same quarter last year. Figure 4 shows the distribution of the quarterly telephone calls and complaints from local communities. FIGURE 4 HISTOGRAM BY COMMUNITY 160 140 120 lO0 80 60 40 20 0 110 47 18 19 50 43 31 31 35 20 8 15 19 10 16 57 Community One household was responsible for 78% of the 151 calls from Balboa Penninsula. -5- TABLE 10 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL HISTORY , , Aircraft Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 A§00 '1 , 6 18 12 20 30 A310 484 486 4061 487 222 , , A319(1) 749 2,111 1,754 ,A320(1) 6,806 ,5,43~ '5,544' 5,752 2,710 B7373 {2) 30,776 28,990 17,582 14,641 6,703 B7374 8,798 7,718 7,795 7,237 2,325 , , B7375(2) , , 8,686 10,350 5,278 B7377 870 3,710 4,0691 B7378 18 B757 20,805 23,220 21,205 20,160 10,966 ~ , MD80 6,662 5,662 6,351 5,801 2,9671 ~MD90 6,970 8',738'9,580 12,492:6,067 (1) Counts that separate A319 and A320 aircraft operations began in 1998. (2) Counts that separate B7373 and B7375 aircraft operations began in 1998. FIGURE 5 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL HISTORY 5,000 o,ooo s,ooo o A300 A310 A319 A320 B7373 B7374 B7375 B7377 B7378 B757 MD80 MD90 (1) (1)_ (2) (2) By Year -14- INTRODUCTION i i i i i ii This is the 110th Quarterly Report submitted by the County of Orange in accordance with the requirements of the California Airport Noise Standards (California Administrative Code Title 21, Chapter 2.5, SubChapter 6: Division of Aeronautics Noise Standards). Effective January 1, 1986, the criteria for defining "Noise Impact Area" was changed from 70 dB to 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Under this criteria, John Wayne Airport currently has a "Noise Impact Area." NOISE IMPACT SUMMARY II I I I I Caltrans' Aeronautics Program has established guidelines in the Califomia State Noise Standard to control residential area noise levels produced by aircraft operations using the State's airports. Under those guidelines, residential noise sensitive areas exposed to an average Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of more than 65 dB define the "Noise Impact Area." John Wayne Airport uses ten permanent remote noise monitoring stations (NMSs) located in Newport Beach, Santa Ana, Tustin and Irvine to measure noise levels. Effective July 1, 1999, the numbers used to refer to the remote noise monitoring stations were changed. In the new numbering scheme, the letters "S" and "N" refer to the monitoring stations' location either to the south or to the north of the airpom The numbering and location of each monitor is as follows: MONITOR STATIONS Former NMS Number New NMS Number Location 1 1S 2 2S 3 3S 22 4S 21 5S 24 6S 6 7S 9 8N 8 9N 7 10N Golf Course, 3100 Irvine Ave., Newport Beach 20152 S.W. Birch St., Santa Ana 2139 Anniversary Lane, Newport Beach 2338 Tustin Ave., Newport Beach 324 ~A Vista Madera, Newport Beach 1918 Santiago, Newport Beach 1131 Back Bay Drive, Newport Beach 17372 Eastman Street, Irvine 1300 S. Grand Avenue, Santa Ana 17952 Beneta Way, Tustin The map in Figx~re 1 shows the general location of each permanent remote noise monitoring station. Figure 2 shows the Airport's "Noise Impact Area" for the previoUs year (July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000). The Figure 2 information was developed by Mestre-Greve Associates, Inc., in consultation with John Wayne Airport. CNEL values measured for the period and current digitized land use information were utilized to calculate the land area acreages, number of residences and estimated number of people within the "Noise Impact Area". -1- FIGURE I ~'~~m.~ JO, ,N WAYNE Ai,,PORT STATION LOCATION MAP 5 ~REEw¥ ,~05 JOHN WAYNE ,IRPORT NGE UNTY ' · INM$: ~S I -2- NMS - NOISE MONITORING STATION TABLE 2 LONG TERM MEASURED LEVELS Aimmft CNEL from 7/99 through 6/00 Values in dB at Each Site Period ......... hMs site ......... '18 ' 2~' 38 ' 4s "58 -68 "78 8N 9N 10N Jul 1~99 "66.6'66.6 65.2"61.2 59.1 ~0.3 ~7.7 ' 6§1'6 51.8 ~6.7 #Days 31 31 30 28 30 , 31 ., 30 29 29,,, 30 Aug 1999 66.9 66.7 65.2 " 59.5 58.9 60.0 58.4 68.4 50.6 57.5~ #Da.vs 31 31 , 26 30 , 30 30 .. 22 . 30 29 31 Sep 1999 6614 66.4; 64.6 59.5 58.1 '" 59.5 57.7 68.2 ~;0.5 '58.0 # Days , 30 30; 29 30 , 30 29,, 29 30 ,,20 28 Q-3 1999 6'6.6 .... 66'5~ 65.0 60.1 58.7 59.9 57.9 68.4. 51.1 57.4 # Days 92 92 85 88 90 90 81 89 78 89 Oct'"1999 ' 66.1 66.:1 ' 64.4 58,~ 57'.~4" 59,~t" '57.9 67,5 51.~"' 56.1 # Days 31 30 31 30 31 29 27 30, 22 31 Nov1999 66.4 '66.4 64.8 ~9.2 ~8.0" 5'9.5 5'~.2 67.7' 52.9 55.7 # Days .. 30 29 30 29 30 29 12 28' 18 29 Dec 1999 ..... 65.4 65.3 65,3 59.2 56.8 "60.4 ~'~'3 66.6 53.4 56.1 # .Days 31 31 31 30 30 31 29 30 22 26 Q-4 1999 66.0 " 66.0~' 6~.9' 59.0 ' "~7.4 60.~' '57.~; 67.3 52.5 56.0 # Days 92 90 92 89 91 89 68 88 62 86 jan 20b0 66.2 66.1 64.8 59".3 58,2' 59.9 ~'0 · 68.0 51.7 56.6 # Days, 31 31 31 ,. 29 3.1 ..31 21 31 29 .... 27 Feb 2000 66.9 "66.5 ' '65.3 59.9 "59.1 60.3 57.6 68.6 52.8 57.4 # Days 28 28, 2.8,, 25 26 23 13 16 14 18 Mar2000 " 66.7 66.4 65.1 ~59.9 59.2 60.6 57.7 68.6 #N/A 57.9 # D...a. ys .... 31 29 28 27 30 21 20 19 0 21 Q-1 2000 66.6 66.31 65.0'" 59.7 58.8 60.2 ' 57.4 6~.3 "5;2.1 57.3 # Days 90 88~ 87 81 87 75 54 66 43 66. Apr200~'" 66.7 66.8 65.0 '"60.5 59.1 '#N/A .... 57.8 '6~.8 57.0 58.2 Cf Days 30 30 29 22 27 0 21 29 7 20 May2000 66.9 67.:1' 65.3 6~)~5 59.0 #N/A, 57.5 68.7 5i12 57.4 # Days.. 31 30 30 15 25 0 23 30 18 16 iJun 2000 66.~ 67.0 65.J' 60,7 59.1 #N/A 57.8' ' 68.9 " 51.0~r' '58.2 # Days 30 23 30 14 26 0 24 28 18 14 iQ-2 2000 66.8 67.0 65.'~~ 6~.5 59.1 #N/A 57.7' 68.~1 52.8. 58.0 # D,a~s 91 83 89 51 78 0 68 87 43' 50 {3-3 1999 thru Q-2 20~10 " '"'" " " "" ' Total / 66.51 66.5 65.0 59.8 58.5 60.0 57.7 68.2 52.0 57.1 # Days~ 3651 353 353 3,09 . 346 254 271 330, 226 .. 291 O-2 1g'99 t ~u Q-1 200l~ (Prev'i~us 4 Quarters) "' # DaysJ 1365 361! 355 349 268 254 290 . 333 .254 332 Change from Previous 4 Quarters I o..2l 0.21 -0,1 0.2 0.0 . 0.3 0.2 . :0.6 0.1 -6- TABLE 3 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MON1TOR STATION April 2000 ' ' i , Date NMs Site !.S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8N 9N 10N I 60.6 61.2 60.~' 53.2 52.6' #N/A #N/A 66.0 '#N/A #N/A ~ 2 66.7 66.1 64.9r. 61.1 58.4 #N/A, 57.6' 69.8 #N/A 58.5 3 67.4 67.0 64.9 61.5 58.3 #N/A 56.5 69.0 #N/A, 57.4 4 66.3..66.4 65.1 58.5 58.6 '#N/A 58.? 68.4 #N/A~'58.7 5 66.7' 66.5 64.8 59.1 #N/^ #N/^ 55.4 69.3 53.9 60.0 . 6 66.9 66:8 65.2 59.8 60.4: #N/A #N/A 69.9 #N/A 60.4 · 7 .67.2 67.3 65.8 #N/A 60.2 #N/A 59.5 69.6 #N/A #N/A 8 65.3 65.1 63.4 61.2 57.6 #N/A 54.5 '67.2#N/A' 54.9 9 66'6 66.2 65.2 60.9 59.2 #N/A 59.1 6t~.953.2 56.7 _ 10 67.2 66.6 65.4 59.7 59.1 #N/A 59.3 69.0 54.3 59.4 11 67.6 67.6 66.1 60.9 #N/A #N/A 58.2 68.6 #N/A 58.0 12 66.7 67.8, 64.9 59.8 58.1 #N/A 55.8 69.5 51.6 59.0_ ~ 13 67.3 67.6 65.7 61.7 60.5 #N/A #N/A 70.0 #N/A #N/A , ,,, __ 14 67.3 67.6 65.7 60.6 60.2 #N/A 58.7 69.9 52.8 #N/A ,, _ 15 66.0 65.5 64.1 #N/A 58.4 #N/A #N/A 67.1 #N/A 58.3 , 16. 67.5 .66.6 65.4 #N/A 59.2 #N/A #N/A 69.:2#N/A 58.1 17 67,.567.9 65.5 62.0 61.1 #N/A #N/A 69;5 53.4 #N/A , .18 66.7',68..3.#N/A #N/,A #N/A #N/A 59.5 ,#N/A #N/A #N/A ~ 19 67.1 67.1 65.7 61.1 60.2 #N/A 58.2 69.4 #N/A 57.9 . 20 67.5 67.4 66'1 60.9 60.3 #N/A 58.8 69.~t #N/A 57.9 ~ ,, i i i , .. 21 66.6 65.8.' 6.4.9 61.9 58.9 #N/A 58.7 69.3 #N/A #N/A 22 64.5 64.6'63..3 58.2 57.8 #N/A #N/A 66.4 63.4 #N~A ,23 66.0 66.3 64.3 61.3 59.0 #N/A 58.0~ 68.7'#N~A 57.7 ,1 i , 24 67.,,.2 67.2 .65.4 59.7 59..7#N/A #N/A 68.6 #N/A #N/A .25 66.4 66.9 64.2 #N/A: 59.2 #N/A #N/A 68.0 #N/A 57.4 .26 66.8 66.5 64.3 #N/A 58.2 #N/A 55.9 68'4 #N~/A 58.2 27 67.1 67..3 65.6 61.1 58.7 #N/A 56.8 69.8 #N/A #N/A , , _ _ .28 67.2 .... 67.6 65.0.#N/A 59.0.#N/A 58.5 .69.0 #N/A 60.1 .29 64.1 65.0 62.5:59.1 57.0 #N/A 55.6 65.5 #N/A 56.1 30 68.0 68.8 66.2,#N/A 59.7 #N/A 56.6 67.6 #N/A 54.7 i i i ii Days 30 30 29 22 27' 21 29 7 _90 En.Avg 66.7 66.8 65.0 60.5 '59.1 57.8 68.8 ~7.0 58.2 #N/A indicates insufficient data. -7- TABLE 4 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION May 2000 "Oat~ ..... NMS site ............. 1s 2s 3s ' 4s 5s '6s '"7s 8N' 9N :ION ,..1 67. i'67.1 6~5.3'"#N/A 59.3 #N/A '55.9 68.2 #N~A' 56~4 ...... 2 66.9~ 67.4 64.8 61.5 58.6~ #N/A 56.8 68.4 #N/A 57.3 · . t .1 i ., i .. , .. 3 67.5 66.9 65.1 #N/A 58.8 #N/A 56.8 69.1 #N/A 58.4 4 67.0 #N/A 65.5 60.4 58.5 #N/A 56.0 69.3 #N/A 59~3 5 67.5 67.4 65.5 61.0' 59.9 #N/A 56.8 #N/A #N/A #N/A . [ I . I I Il ii Il I I[ . 6 64.7 66.8 62.8 58.9 57.2 #N/A #N/A 66.4 48.2 54.9 ,.. . , 1. i i , [ ,. i i . . . 7 67.0 66.9 65.1 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 68.8 51 1 58.0 8 66.9 66.7 65.7 60.3 #N/~ #N/^ 56.6 69.0 49.7 59.6 .......... : 9 67.6 67.2: 65.7 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 69.6 49.2 #N/A ..... 10 66.8 68.2 66.1 #N/A 59.9 #N/A 58.7 69.0 50.7: #N/A . . . i .. . ,.. , ,. . ~1 67.8 68.0 66.2 #N/A 60.3 #N/A #N/A 69.4 49.9 58.4 . I Il Ill I I I · I I U . I 12 66.4 67.9~ 65.0 60.2 57.8 #N/A 53.3 67.6 #N/A 56.6 ' 13' 64.8 "' ~5.3 62.7 #N'~/A 57.0 '#N/A '53.7 6~.~;#~I/A "~52~1 14 67.2 67.5, 65.0 #N/A 57.9 #N/A 59.0 68.7 #N/A #N/A 1'5 ..... 67.1 "68'.1 65.7 -60.5~ #N/~ #N/A 58.7 69.4~'#N/A~"~58,8 1. i i i . i ........ 16 66.0 66.6i 65.3 #N/A 59.2 #N/A 58.4 69.4' 51.8 58.7 17 6712 67.1 65.6 61.4 59.5 #N/A 58.1 68.8 54.6 #N/A 1. , . , i ... i ,t ..[. .. 18 67.5 67.4 66.6 #N/A 59.8 #N/A #N/A 68.5 #N/A #N/A 19 68.1 68.1 66.6 60.6 59.7 #N/^ #N/^ 68.5 51.6 56.4 11 Ill I ' ' Il I[] I U I ] 20 65.9 65.8 64.8 58.8 58.3 #N/A #N/A 65.4 53.3 54.3 11 [i. , Jl ! I Il ! , .! 21 67.1 67.0 65.8 60.7 58.6 #N/A 57.5 69.2:#N/A #N/A ' 2;~' '67.3 66.4 66.1 #N/A: 5'~i1#N/A 57.8 69.2,#N)A #N/A · . i J , .. . ~ .... i u ,. . 23 67.1 66.8 65.5 #N/A 58.6 #N/A 56.3 69.5 53.5 #N/A . . . _ . , ,i , . 24 67.4 67.0 66.4 60.6 59.4 #N/A 59.2 69.8 52.2 #N/A 25 68.5 68.3 #N/A #N/A 60.6 #N/A 57.9 70'1 53.3 #N/A · · , ~ . i . ] Il 11 I 26 68.5 68.1 66.6 #N/A #N/A #N/A 59.8 69.1 #N/A #N/A ". 27 ..... 64.5 .64.9.'63.0 61.2 59'.3' ,.#NJ)A 5~.~' 65.3 47.0 54.3 28 63.1 64.8 61.9 #N/A 54.9 #N/A 58.8 65.7 49.7 #N/A .1 . 1. ., . . , . . .. [ . .... .. 29 66.4 66.365.1 60.1 #N/A #N/A' #N/A 69.0 42.6 #N/A =, , ,, , 30 67.2 67.6 65.5 #N/A 58.7 #N/A 56.1 69.8 48.5 #N/A .. 31 66.9 67,165.5 60.6 59.3 #N/~ 57.0 69.0 51.658.4 i i i i ] ~1 U l i i i ! ill i Il I Ill Days, 31 30 .30, .~15 ,25 ,. 23 30 ,18~ 16 En.Avg 66.9 67..1..65.3 60..5 59.0.. 57...568.7 51.2 57.4 #N/A indicates insufficient data. -8- TABLE 5 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION June 2000 Date~ NMS Site ' . lS ,28 38 48 58'' 6S 78 8N ON 10N 1 66.8 66.5 65.4 #N/A 59.5 #N/A '55.6 '69.2 #N/A 58.~ 2 67..0 67.1 65.8 #N/A 59.5 #N/A 57.2 .69.'_2 52.6 59.4 3 64.3, 64.7 62.2 61.4 #N/A #N/A #N/A 65.9 #N/A" #N/A . 4 66.5~ 67.2 64.6 #N/A 59.8 #N/A 57.4 68.9 52.2 58~0 · 5 66.6' 66.4 64.4 59.3 58'2 #N/A 58.9 69.0 #N/A 57.6 6 66.6 66.4 64.5 61.6 #N/~ #N/~ 56.0 68.3 #N/~ 57.2 , ,7 .66.7#N/A 64.3 58.9 #N/A #N/A 56.5 69.3 54.7 .#N/A 8 67.3 #N../^ 65.4 60.7 60.5 #N/A 58.7 69.2 #N/^ #N/^ 9 67.0 #N/A 64.9:#N/A 59.2 #N/A 58.3 69.4 54.2 #N/A 10 65.8 65.1 63.9 60.2 57.7 #N/A 58.3 67.0 48.8 58.0 , 11 66..9 67.6 65.0 59.0 58.2 #N/A'"58.6 #N/A #N/A #N/A 12 .'66.9#N/A 65.1.#N/A 60.4 #N/A #N/A 69.1 49.1 #N/A 13 66.1 ~N/A. 64.7 59.8 58.3 #N/A 56.9 68.3 48.8 #N/A __ 14 67..4 #N/A 65.1 59.8 58.3 #N/A 56.6 69.3 #N/A #N/A 15 67.,1 65.9 65.4 #N/A 59.8 #N/A 58.5 69.5 48.4 #N/A .16 67.5 67.9 66..161'6 59.6 #N/.A .#N/A 68.6 44.1 #N/A . 17 65.3 65.4 63.9 .#N/^ 57..5 #N/A 56.4, 67.3 #N/^ 58.2 _ 18 .,66,8.67.2 65.2 #N/A 59.7 #N/A 57.1 69.4 #N/A #N/A~ ~ , 19 67.5 #N/.A 65;1 #N/A 59.6 #1~/A~58.6 69.0 .,49.7#N/A .20 .66.5 66.5 64.6 #N/A 58.5 #N/A 57.2 69.2 50.9 #N/A . 21 , 67.0 67.1 65.1., #N/^ 59.4 #N/^ 57.7 69.3 47.6 #N/^ 22 68.1 ,68.7 67.0 #N/A 59.8 #N/A 58.4 70.0 47.5 #N/A 23 67.2 67.8 65.6 #N/^ #N/^ #N/^ #N/^ 69.4 #N/^ #N/^ ,. 24 65.2 65.2 .63.3#N/A .57.3 #.N/A 58.5 67.1 #N/A 56.9 ,.. 25 66.5 67'.7 64.7 61.8 58.4 #N/^ #N/~ 68.7 #N/A 57~3 _ 26 67.3 ,68.1 65.1 61.1 58.9 #N/A 58.1 68.3 54.6 55.5- ·27 66.,8'66.2 66.0 61.5 58.2 #N~A 56.7 69.1 45.8 56.8 28 67..166.9 65.4 61.5 58.4 #N/A! 59.2 69.2 48.0 60.0 29 67.9 .6719 66.4 #N/A 59..6 #N/A 58.4 70.0 53.1 59.8 30 67.8: 68.1 67,0 #N/A 60.3 #N/A #N/A. #N/A 49.3 59.5 i i i i i Days 30 23 30 14, 26 24 28 18 14 ~En.Avg ~6.8 '.6.7.0 '65.1 60.7 59.1 57.8 68.9 51.0 58.2 , #N/A indicates insufficient data. -9- TABLE 6 MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVE~ NOISE EXPOSURE LE~LS Commercial Class A April- June 2000 Ca~er ...... AC Type'~f'"Deps ........... ' ..... NMS'Site ' ' ' 1S 2S' 3,~" 4S 5S 6S' 7S' 8kl' 9N 10N ..... 8~ 0' · Ala~kaAir" '~737~ 333 ~;~rage 95.5 95.1 92.0 . 87.2 #N/A 84.8 93.~2 81.8 81.0 Count (329) (298) (331) (326) (330) (0) (324) (1) (1) (1) . . Amer~c~aWest A32d" 10Av~['age 93.8 '93:2 91.0 85.9 83.5 #N/A 81.1 84.5 #N/A #N/A Count (8) (7), (81 ', (;9).(9) (,0) (8), (1) (0) 87373 J~. Average'' 96. i '94.4 93.2 86.0 85.2 #N/A 84.1 #N/A #N/A #N/A ,. Count , (2) (1) (2), (2) (2) (0) (2) (0) (0) (0)! 8757 70 Average 94.6 95.2 91.4 85.7 84.5 #N/A 82.5 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (68) (63) (69) (68) (68) (0) (63) (0) (0) (0)~ American' ' 87.~7 251JAver~ge' ' [13.3 93.9 91.5 86.3 85.6 #N/A 84.4 86.1 #N/A #N/A. Count (247t ,,(219) .!243) (240) _(244) (0) (238) (2) (0) MD8b '688. AVerage 99.3 99.3 98.1 92.0 92.2 #N/A 90.2 99.9 84.6 86.4 Count (667) ..(593) (659) (663) (670)... (0).. (642,) (13) (8) (5) · . MD90 18Average 86.5 86.7 85.5 80.0 79.0 #N/A 78.8 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (18) (18) (18) (16) (13) (0) (11) (0) (0) (0). contin~'ntal '!~373 270AVerage 9.~'.~t 94.7 93.3 87.5 87.0 #N/~' ~5.0 94~1 80.7 78.8' Count (258) ._(231) (258) (255) (260) (0) (25.6.) (8). (3) (5) 8737~' '229 Average 95.5 95.0 92.6 86.1 85.2 #N/A 83.4 95.4 80.9 82.1 Count (203) (186) (203) (203) (204) (0) (198) (20) (9) (15) ........... Delta ' "873~73 ..... ~ Average 93.7 93.3 90.4 86.8 83.8 #N/A 86.5 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count ... (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)_ (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) 875~" 261 Average 95.1 94.7 93.0 '85.5 85.8 #N/A 84.0 91.7 #N/A; 78.7 Count (253) (228) (251) (248) (2,54)~ (0) (248) (6) (0)i (2) F~dEx" .~.300 12Average ..... 94.;~ '94.~"92.3 8~12 86.4 #N/A 84.1 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (1..2) (10) (12) .. (12) (12) (0) (11) (0) .... (0)(0) A310 .... 2Average 98.3 98.0 96.6 91.3 90.8 #N/A 89.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (51) (46) (51) (51) (51) _.(0)i (47.) (0) (0) (0) N0~hWes:t''' A~20 418Avera~e 95.4 94.8 93.1' 88.1 85.5 #N/A~ 84.0 92.3 77:6 78.7 .Count (400) (358) (397): (39,9),,,(399) (0) (394)i (13) (1) _(1) Southwest ' 87373 '"1741,~vera~' 93'.6 ~3.5 90.4 87.1 85.6 ~;~/A 83.~5, 88.9 #N/A #N/A Count (173) (14,,7)1(171) (170). _(171) (0) (1.70). (1.) (0) (0) 87377 ' 8 Average 90.9 91.9i 86.6 79.7 82.4 #N/A 79.6. #N/A #N/A #N/Al Count (8) (8); (8) (7) (8) (0) (7) (0) (0) (0); '¥WA ....... 875~ 216Average 93,4~ 93.1 ~t0.0 83.6 83.2 #~/A 81.5 '~9.1 #N/A #N/A Count ,(211) (186) (212) (209) (209). .(0) (205) (1)...(0)i (0) MD80 ' 40Average'' 99.9 99.6 97.1 90.3 90.4 #N/A 90.5 96.7 79.4 85.9 Count (3,8), (35) (38) (38) (38) (0) (37) (2) (1) (2) Unit,~c~ "' A~20 ' " 4Average 93.1 '92.7 91,7 8'6.~ ~4.9 #N/A 85'.0 #~1'/.~~N/A #N/A Count (4)! , (4) (.4..) (4) (4.): (0)1 (4) (0) (..,0,)(0) 87373 ' 136 Average "'95.1 94.7 92.6: 86.41 86.5 #N/A 84.6, -94.7 #N/A #N/A .., .Count (1.~35) (120). (134) (..134)i(1.35). (0) .(132). _(1) (0) (0) 8757' 38 Average 93.7 93.2 91.2 84.4 84.7 #N/A 83.6 87.4 #N/A 76.9 Count (36) (33). (35) (35) (33) (0) (32) (2) (0) (2) UPS .......... 8757 ....64 A;~erage '94.3 94.5 92.2 86.3 "8.~.4 #N/A 83.6 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (64) (59) (63) (64) (63) (0) (62) (0)i (0)~ (0) US Xirways ' A31~" 182Av~'~ge 94.~5" 93.7 93.6 86.5 84.9"#N/A B~,5 92.7'78.8 81.8 Count (166) (145) (1.67) (168! ....(166) ..{0)! (165) (11) (2) (8) iii i i i i -10- TABLE 7 MEAS~D AVENGE SING~ EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LE~LS Commemial Class AA April- June 2000 Card~ " AC Type i# Deps ..... NMS Site ' ' ' 1S 2S. 3S .... 4S" 5S- ~"' 6~S' ?S ~N 9N 10N ~iaska ~ir B7374 157 Average"' 92.7 92.8 89.4~ '841~t 85.6i" #N/A ~'2.9 ' 87.5' #N/A #N/A Count (151,) ,(136) (153) (153) (154) (0) (150) (1) (0) (0) Amedca West A320 ...... 247 Averag~ 91.4 91.5 89,3 85.'1 '8~.2 ~fN~A 81.0 ~N/A #N/A #N/A Count (246) (230) (245) (245) (240) (.0) (156) (0) (0) (0) B7373 721 Average 93.1 93.1 90.1 85.2 84.6' #N/A 82.8 88.0 80.5 77.6 Count (704) (636) (697) (701) (701) (0) (678) .(6) (2) (3) B757 2 AVerage 93.0 94.3 91.0 86.3 86.9 #N/A 82.1 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (2), (2) (2) (2) (2) (0) (2) (0) (0) (0) Amedcan B75~" ' 776Average 92.21" 9~.3 ~)'.'6: 85.5 ~.9 #N/A 8314 87.4 77.2 77.4 .Count (756) (684) (7.53) (749) (736) (0) (708). (8) (2) (1) M'D90 58 Average 87.4 87.6 86.1 81.0 80.0 #N/A 80.0 84.3 #N/A #N/A Count (57) (57) (57): (47) (43) (0) (38) (1) (0) (0) '1 i I III_ I ~c°ntinental' B~377 136 Average 92.9 92.9 8'§.7 85.5 83.7 #N/A 81.8 #h/A #h/A #N/A Count (134) (113) (132)i (131) (133) (0) (127) (0) (0) (0) D~lta ' "B~57 l,.Average 90.4~ 91.7 90.0 84.0 85.3 "~N/A '78.8 #N/A~" #N/A #N/A Count (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (0). (1). (0).. (0/ ...(...0.) MD90 347 Average 91.7 91.5 89.7 82.9 "82.5 #N/A 83.1 92.6 81.9 79.4 ~Count (340) (305) (341) (309) (310) (0)~ (318) (3) .(1) (4) Southwest ' B7373 180 A~/emge 92'.8 92.8 90.0; fi4.8 85.3 #N/A 83.0 86.6 85.6 #1~/A !Count (177) (168) (177) (179) (175) (0) (174)~ !1) (.1). (0) B7377 2,Average 89.9 89.6 86.6 82.3 81.7 '~N/A 80.2 #N/A #N/A #N/A ~Count (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) un'ited A320 '~)7~'iAvemge 91.4 91.6 90.6 85.5 .84.2 #N/A 84.6: 85.4 #N/A #N/A .. Count (276) (238) (2.74)j (273) (..274) (0) (269)i (1)~ .(0) (0~) B757 17:~:Average 93.3 93.1 90.71 83.6 83.9 #N/A 83.1 92.0' #N/A 76.4 _ , Coun! (16,6,,)(153) (168) (163) (169) .... (0) (162). (2); ,(,0,) (1) MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSU~ LE~LS Commercial Class E April- June 2000 Carder AC Type # D~ps ' " NMS Site ...... ' 1S 2S 3S" ~ ' 5S 6S 7S 8N' 9N 10N iAlas~'ka~ir B7:~74 ~'2Average 91.2 91'19' 8~:7 83,9 85.1 '~N/A"' 82.6 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (6.0.) (59).. (59.) .... (.61) . (61) (0) (60): (0) (0) (0) B7377 596 Average 90.1 90.3 87.0 81.8 83. i #N/A 80.8: 86.7 #N/A 78.0 Count (588) (539) (585) (579) (589) (0) (555)i (4) (0) (1) :AmedcaV~est B7373 .... 665 Average 91.6 91.9 88.91 84.5 84.6 #~/A 82.1 89.0 82.7 75'.4 Count (655)i (595) (651) (653) (649) (0) (631) (2) (1) (2) ' I II I I American ~7 100 Average 90.6' 90.8' 89,4 84.0 ~3.5 #N/A 82.2 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count .(99) (94) .!98.) (95) (9.4); (0) (89) (0) (0) (0) MD90 '1039 A~emge ' 87.8 88.2; 86.4 '80.8 " 79.9 #N/A 79.3 84,6 #N/A #N/A Count (1020) (927) (1027) (981) (849) (0) (662) (6) (0) (0) Deit~ ~D90j' 176Average 91,4 '{)1.3' ~9.4 82.3 8~'.0 #~/A' 82.0 89.7 #N/A ~N/Ai Count (174) (152) (172) (162) (154) (0) (165) (2) (0) (0); SOuthwest ' :B7~3 '838AVerage '~t1~'9 92'.0 89.~ "84.6:"85~0 #1~/A 82,6 91,8 81'.8 81.6! Count (8.27) (753), (821) (823) (826) (0) (803) (5) (2) (2) 'B7377 26 Average 89.0 89.2 85.8 80.3 81.4 #N/A 79.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A !Count (26) (23) (26) (22) (25) (0) (20) (0): (0) (0) United .... B75~7 '694 Average 91.6 91.6 89.0 83.7 83.0 #1~/A 82.3 89.8 #N/A 74,4 Count (672) (620) (669) (655) (651) (0) (649) (10) (0) (2) II I IIII I I I II I I I IIII ii1! II -11- TAB, L~ 8 1VIEASURED AVENGE SING~ EVE~ NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS Commuter April- June 2000 'Carfi~r AC TYPe ~ Deps ........... - ' NI~S Site .... · ,, 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8N 9N 10N SkyWest cL~(J' 89 Average 85.6 84,3 87.4 82.7 78.7 #N//~ 78:1 83.4 #~/A #1~/A Count (85) (84). (84) .. (44) (19) (0)i (6) (2) (0..) (0) E120 12~5 Average 80.9 83.4 82.0 82.6 '83.4 #N/A 79.7 79.2 82.3 73.9 , , Count (1237) (1114); (11,,7.5,) (139) (841) (0) (.1....0.8) (5) (..2.):!1) MEASURED AVENGE SING~ EVE~ NOISE EXPOStJRE LEVELS General Aviation April - June 2000 C~ier .... AC '~YP~" # D~ps ....... NMS Site 1S 2S 3S 4S 55[' "6S ¥S "8N ~N 10N General Aviation iJet ~1655 A~erage '90.4 89~g' 90.8 8~.'1 84.8 #N/)A 84:9 82:7 #N/A ~fN~A ...... Cou. n.t (.1.458) (1294) (1..445) (924)! (759). .(0) (.614) (12) (0) (0) -12- TABLE 9 AIR CARRIER OPERATIONAL HISTORY i i i ii , l Carder AC Type Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 !Alask~Air" AS ~374 8,798 7,718 7,795 7,237 2,325 9737~ 1,090 2,537 MDB0 22O '4 ' ' America West AW A'319 ' 112 340 , , , A320 780 6 509 1,059 681 97373 15,284 '14,152 11,917 11,986. 5,595 9757 858 1,332 205 464 270 I American AA 97378 2 9757 8,542 8,970 8,329 8,145 4,810 , , , MD80 926 610 1,119 2,285 2,653 MD90 " 3,191 3,98i -- I I Continental CO 97373 (1) 2,786 . 2,710 720 24' 1 97375 (1) 1,995 2,061 1, 97377 868 2,491 1,389. 97378 16 , B757 659 724 298 MD80 4 ' Delta DE 97373 614 2 2 9757 1,452 2,202 2,117 1,585 1,047 MD90 2,944 31058 31836 4,218 2,'086 /::edEx Fa A300 16: 18 12 20 '30~ A310 484 486 496 487 2221 I II N°rthwest NW ;A319 9 399 A320 3,.502 3,4d8 3,219 3,486 1,231 9757 2 " -- I I I I Reno Air QQ MD80 4,072 4,200 4,246. 2,622 MD90 4,026 5,680 5,744 5,083 'SouthWest WN B7373 (1) .. 9,918 .9,846~ 2,986 1,§58 676 97375(1) . , 6,689 8,234 4,098 973~/ 2 129 138 ~WA IW 97.~57 ' 406 1,24'~ ~',139 1,174i '715 MD80 1,440i 848 986 894 31 United "'~ UA !A319(2) 749 1,03'5 293' A320(2) 2,524 2,024 1,816 1,196 796 97373 (1) 1,332 836 503 791 429 97375 (1) 2 55 9757 7,766 8,274 8,617 8,290 3,866 uPS 5X97~7 504 476 500 502 258 III US AirwaYs US A319 " ' 955 722 , A320 '11 2 97373 ' 842 1,~44 1,456 482 9757 616 " ' I (2) Counts that separate B7373 and B7375 aircraft operations began in 1998. Counts that separate A319 and A320 aircraft operations began in 1998. -13- TABLE 11 A.IR CARRIER AVENGE DAILY DEPARTURE HISTORY Carrier ....... iA~ :i'YPe ......... year ' ' 1996 '1997 1991~" 1999 2000- Alas'ka Air ' ' ~,~ B7374 12,019' 10.5~3 10.682 9.921 6:390 _ _ ~ i, ~ ,, B7377 1.490 6.973 MbS0 0.~01 0.'065 ' ............ :America West AW A319 0.929 A320 1.066 0.008 0.688 1.452 1.874 ..... _~..~ ~.. B7373 20.880 19.386 16.351 16.425 15.357 B757 1.172 1.825 0'.279 '0.63b 0.742 American' AA" B7378 " 0.003 B757 11.669 12.288 11.39~ 11.15~' '13~2'09 ,=, , , , ,, , , MD80 1.265 0.836 1.551 3.148 7.308 , , MD90 4.359 10,929 Continental co B7373'il) 3.806 "3.712: 0.984 d.033 "~),005 B7375(1) .... 2.742 '2.844 §~24'~ ,, ....... B7377 1.184 3.392 3.808 , , ,, B7378 0.022 B757 0.900 '0.992 0.408 '" .i MD80" (5.005 ' Delta .... DL B7373"" 0:839 0'.'b0~ ....... 0.005 B757 1.984 3.016 2.899 2.175: 2.879 MD90 "~,022 '4.189 5.249 5.=775' 5.725 Fedex FM"A300 0.022 0.025 0:~)16 0.0~7~ (~.01~2 A310 0.661 0.666~ 0.679 b.668: b.61o N0rt~west NW A319 ........ D~)~4~ 1.093 A32~3' ' 4.~'84 4.668'' 4.4(~ 4.775, 3.385 B757 0.003 i i! il i iii 'J:l~fioAi~" QQ MD§0 5.563 5.753 5.830 3.597 MD90 5.500 7.781 7.860 6.964 ' S'o~thwest .... WN "B7373 (1) .13,.,5.~9. .13-488 4.088 '1.8~0 1'.857 B737~) (1) 9.167 11.296 11.258 B~377 0.003 0.17~ 0.3~9 ' ' 'I'V~A TW 0.555" 1.701 1.564 1~627 1.962 MD80 - 1.967 1,162' 1.345 1,208' 0.863 united 0A A319(~) ' ' ' 1.030 ~.~4~1 '(~'.808 A320 (2) " 3.448 2.773 '~)~488 1~647 2.i87 B7373 (1) 1'.8'20" 1.145 0.688 1.082' 1'.18'1 B7375 (1) 0.003 0.016 B757 10'.669'11.334 11.803: 11.44i 10.632! UP~ ....... 5X B757 0.689= 0.652 0.~851 6.688 0.709! US Airways US A319 1.310 1.984 , , , , , , , A320 0.014! 0.005 , .... , B7373 1.150 i.978 1.995 0.660: .B757 . 0..842 .... i i i i ii i ii (1) Counts that separate B7373 and B7375 aircraft operations began in 1998. (2) Counts that separate A319 and A320 aircraft operations began in 1998. -15- NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITrEE MEETING Date: June 22, 2000 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Eddie Martin Building AGENDA ITEMS AND ITEMS DISCUSSED: 1. Airoort Statistics Bonnie Streeter summarized the airport statistics for June 2000. She noted that during June 2000, there were increases in passengers served and air taxi traffic. Air cargo tonnage, air carrier operations, tower operations and general aviation operations were down compared with June of 1999. 2. Status of the Santa Ana Heigh.ts Ac, ousfi~l Insulation Program Carl Braatz explained that 26 homes in the Santa Ana Heights area are currently in the design stage of construction for acoustical insulation. Another construction contract is expected to be awarded on June 27, 2000, for an 182-unit apartment building at the comer of Mesa Drive and Irvine Boulevard. During the last four years, the Santa Ana Heights Acoustical Insulation Program has completed insulation on a 32-unit apartment building, two groups of 10 single family dwellings, 'another group of 22 homes, plus two other groups of 21 homes for a total of 116 single family residences. 3. Update on Airport Noise Monito,,ring System Doffs Mays described the Access and Noise Office's newly installed Total Airport Management Information System (TAMIS). She highlighted some of the features of the $1.4 m/Ilion system, including real-time radar tracking of aircraft movements, real-time noise event displays and a state-of-the-art projection system for presentations to Community members and other interested parties. Doris invited anyone interested to contact the Access and Noise Office to schedule a tour of our facility. 4. Any additional questions Q~ Ed Hall asked if there were any restrictions on the loads of the air cargo operators and -16- NOISE ABATEMENT COMMII'~IEE MEETING (continued) expressed concern about corporate jet noise, police helicopters over his area in Santa Ana Heights, and early morning general aviation operations.' Ae Doffs Mays explained the restrictions on akcraft noise in effect at John Wayne Aipon for the commercial and general aviation aircraft operators and Bonnie Streeter described the enforcement of the General Aviation Noise Ordinance. 5. Next Meetin~ Date The date for the next quarterly Noise Abatement Committee meeting will be announced by letter approximately two weeks before the meeting. -17- NAC ROSTER II June 22, 2000 NAME ORG ,ANIZATION Larry Willis Continental Airlines Paul Seifert Continental Airlines Carl Braatz John Wayne Airport Kris Vogt John Wayne Airport Doffs Mays John Wayne Airport Bonnie Streeter John Wayne Airport Issy C. Hemandez Santa Aha Heights Ed Hall Santa Ana Heights Robert B. Hanley Santa Ana Heights Rita Westfield City of Tustin -18- Attachment B Review of John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Reports February 20, 2001 Project File 241-01 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Subject: Review of John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Reports for the 1 st and 2~d Quarters of 2000 Dear Ms. Binsack, As requested, we have reviewed the referenced quarterly reports for the noise abatement program at John Wayne Airport. The following provides our findings with regard to airport operations and their impact on the City of Tustin: . Referring to Figures 1 and 2, the average annual CNEL at NMS 1 ON was 57.6 dB for 2000 based upon data for the first two quarters. This is 0.8 dB higher than the average annual CNEL of 56.8 dB for 1999. (NOTE: The noise contours for John Wayne Airport are based on average annual CNEL values measured at each remote monitoring station.) The average annual CNEL of 57.6 dB in 2000 reflects the continuation Of a modest upward trend in the aircraft noise exposure measured at NMS 1 ON. This trend is illustrated in the following table' Year . . Average'Annual CNEL · 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 56.1 dB 56.4 dB 56.8 dB 55.9 dB 57.0 dB 56.8 dB 57.6 dB 3. Referring to Figure 2, the number of noise complaints received from the Tustin area does not appear to correlate with the average quarterly aircraft CNEL measured at NMS 1 ON, nor with the number of quarterly jet operations at the airport. As indicated in the figure, the number of jet operations peaked during the fourth quarter of 1999, the quarter that also generated the fewest complaints from residents of the Tustin area. 4. As indicated in Item 1, above, the annual average CNEL measured at NMS 10N was 57.6 dB through the second quarter of 2000. This is slightly less than the 58 dB that was estimated for the station in the referenced aircraft noise impact study for the Phase 2 Access Plan.. Wieland Associates Acoustical Consultants 23276 South Pointe Drive Suite 114 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: 949/829-6722 Fax: 949/829-6670 DLWieland@aol.com www. wielandassoc.com ..... I ..... I I ..... I .... I I I I I , I I I I I , I I I I ' --I-- I ! , I I -- t- I I I I I I I I I -r .... r'-- I I , ,t , · i -I- , i i I i I i i I I I . I --I ..... I I ! (ap) ~ 58.5 ..... ~z ~.o ~ 57.5 .- ................. ' ¢~ i -i .'.' :':': :::: ~ 56.5 ;- -':.. ~- - - ~...:z' ':' :1 "'" -'"'~ CY 56.0 i ! ... ,-:': ~:':' .'.'i ~ 555 ~--':<' " ' "'" "'" '' .~.~ ,., qq.l) < 1Qtr99 2Qtr99 3Qtr99 4Qtr99 1Qtr00 2Qtr00 3Qtr00 4Qtr00 , , i i l r./3 ' · ~ 25,000 . ¢~ .'-.'-"i --i~'! ~ 20,000 ............. ' :--:: ..... :-': .... ~-: ?:-,- - 0 :i:i :::: :::: '"" ' ' o~..q 000 '-' ;< -:: ;'~ .... >: ..... -: -: ...... ' ' , o , '-"ltl tlthrl_____ __ _..._:.".' ~-..~:-'.' :-.- · '-': :_:22. :-." ~ .'., ., I ?:i ?:' '" " ~ .. ........ :.:. .'.: ooo---'-', '": '"' c~= s, ,, ,.[~ ? ~.:... '.:ri! ..... '.:::-] .... ' .... :.:,-:-, · --; O ! !';': , ,-, ~'i:: , :i ,, , :,:, , ';" , ! ! I © [- 1Qtr99 2Qtr99 3Qtr99 4Qtr99 1Qtr00 2Qtr00 3Qtr00 4Qtr00 ['A'v:rage Quarteriy Noise Compbin'tsI · ~ 80 , >'~ 60 ........... ~ ¢~ ~ :: '~ "~ 40 . '"" '~' 'i 0 .';" , ~ .2.', ~ ,...,~ : : q , .:.: ,.., . . :.:.'i ' ' I : : 0 , ', '1 '" :,: i ' < 1Qtr99 2Qtr99 3Qtr99 4Qtr99 1Qtr00 2Qtr00 3Qtr00 4Qtr00 I Ill I I I I WIELAND Average Quarterly CNEL, Quarterly Jet 2 ASSOCIATES, INC. Operations, and Quarterly Noise Complaints CITY OF TUSTIN Project File 241-01 Aircraft Noise Contours Figure 3 provides the estimated location of the John Wayne Airport noise contours for 2000. These are based on the 1999 contours developed by the John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Office, and data through the second quarter of 2000. Referring to Figure 3, it is estimated that in 2000 the aircraft-generated CNEL ranged from about 59 dB to less than 55 dB. This is well below the City, County, and State criteria of 65 dB for residential areas. -. .. ..... Use of Quieter Aircraft at John Wayne Airport The correlation between the increasing use of quieter aircraft at JWA and the change in CNEL within the City of Tustin has been assessed. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies aircraft into three categories based on noise levels. In order of decreasing noise levels, there are Stage I, Stage II, and Stage III aircraft. John Wayne Airport has only permitted Stage III aircraft since the early 1970's. The airport has its own classification scheme for passenger aircraft. In order of decreasing noise level, these are Class A, Class AA, and Class E aircraft. Table 1 provides the estimated number of each class of aircraft that used the airport between the first quarter of 1999. and the second quarter of 2000. Also provided is the measured average quarterly CNEL at NMS 1 ON. Table 2 provides the same information, but the values have been normalized to 17,000 aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) per quarter. In this way, a correlation can be established between the quarterly CNEL and the mix of aircraft types. Referring to Table 2 and Figure 4, the percentage of quieter Class E aircraft using John Wayne Airport has gradually increased since the beginning of 1999. This increase in Class E aircraft was offset by a decrease in the use of the noisier Class A aircraft. Based on data from the first quarter of 1999 through the second quarter of 2000, there does not appear to be any correlation between the aircraft mix and the average quarterly CNEL at NMS 1 ON. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this acoustical consulting service. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us at 949/829-6722 Sincerely, WlELAND ASSOCIA C "t3av-id L. Wieland -- · Principal Consultant ~ ,_~ '*:~ -~-k~,' ~~ ' ' ~ "~:' '~Jj~~,: '~=~ ~T "r.~.:~,,.~, ~. ..... , .... . ~-> ~.~ .... ;. ,.,, , _.:~ .... , ,-:;~.:,~...~1~I~ ~,i~ 4~ i,~1: .. ~.~ .... , ~ ....... ~,~. , .~~.~ ~ ',, ~ ~,,~: ~" ~ ..... ~..,, . ~ .... ~,~. ~.~ .~ ..~. ~ ,~,~ .,. ~ ~-=.. ,~.-~ ~~., . .,~ ~ .... , ..... J~ llJ~l~:' .--.' ~ .~J~ . ~ L ~," , . ' ~" . ~ '; :. · -.~ .~.~ ~ ,, ~~~~. ~i .... . -. --, - ~ - -x-, '~' '~ -r. z t~ "" ' I ' ~,, ~_ -- ~ -~ ,. ~:~ · , ~:~ ~:, ~', C~ ~. ~ II I III I I II WIELD Estimated Location of 3 ASSOC~TES, INC. Jo~ Wayne Alcoa Noise Conto~s, 2000 II II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I J ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I ! I I I I I j I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I *" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I t I I I I ... i I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I rtl J I I I I I I I I , II'"lI I I I I J I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I~~.---.~ I ...r.......,.........,..... C)/~ ~ .,-.,t"" I I I I I I I ~/~ I I I I I I I I ~i~ ! I I I I I I I I , i -,,-, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I ... I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 suop~odo ~o~.~V JO ~oqumN I II ! II I I! I I Ill II I II o o References CITY OF TUSTIN Project File 241-01 "Data Evaluation and Aircraft Noise Impact Study for the City of Tustin;" J. J. Van Houten & Associates, Inc.; January 8, 1990. "Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Repo~ for the Period: January' 1, 2000 through March 31, 2000;" John Wayne Airport. "Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report for the Period: April 1, 2000 through June 30, 1999;" John Wayne Airport. . ................ i:: ========================= ~'i:i:i:i:'~.. : ~;:Z:':i!i~'! p~ "" ......-.-... ..... , . , · ~ .:~:::~:~: ~ ::~:.~ ........ z , ........ ' , ..... :.:...-.-.:.:::::.:::.:.~ ......... · .:..'.:::::;: .;:.;:;;;:;::. ;:'-~..": ......... · '1~ '-':'" .':':':::'¥:' .ii~::: '"" ~"' ........... · :.::.-::::. ............ ............. ...... , , ......... '.:. :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ........................ :;:~.~?:~:~-, ~ .............%......: ,,, :..'~ ::~:?~:~i ~ ~ · . ... ..... ........... . .. ~ ~:::~:~:~:~ ::::~:~:E:~ .... . ..::.:w.:.:.: .............. ,