The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06 J.W. QUARTERLY RPTS 01-06-97DATE: JANUARY 6, 1997 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT QUARTERLY REPORTS RECOMMENDATION Receive and file report. FISCAL IMPACT The City retains the acoustics consulting firm of J.J. Van Houten and Associates, Inc. for review of noise-related items. The costs for such reviews are annually included in the' Community Development Department budget. DISCUSSION The Community Development Department currently contracts with an acoustics consultant to review and interpret the John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Reports prepared by the County of Orange. ~On September 21, 1987, the City Council authorized these reviews to monitor airport noise issues as a result of concerns from many Tustin residents. Twice a year, the consultant prepares a report which summarizes two quarterly reports. Attachment 1 contains the quarterly reports for the first and second quarters of 1996. Attachment 2 contains the summary report prepared by the noise consultant. A brief overview of the information contained within these attachments follows. Measured Noise Levels During the first quarter of 1996, the average CNEL at Remote Monitoring Station (RAMS) #7, located at Columbus City Council Report JWA Noise Abatement Quarterly Reports January 6, 1997 Page 2 Tustin Middle School, was 57.1 dB. This is 0.2 less than the four previous quarters. Also, for comparison, the CNEL was 56.3 during the first quarter of 1995. During the second quarter of 1996, the average CNEL was 56.6. This is 0.1 less than the four previous quarters. For comparison, the CNEL was 56.9 during the second quarter of 1995. Ail measured noise levels are below the City' County and State criteria of 65 dB CNEL for residential areas. Noise Complain6s During the first quarter of 1996 there were 41 Tustin/Orange complaints compared with 41 for the same period during 1995. During the second quarter of 1996, there were 73 Tustin/Orange complaints compared with 41 for the same Period during 1995. The increase in complaints may be related to the increase in jet operations. Type and Mix of Aircraft Related to Noise Levels During the first quarter of 1996, the percentage of quieter · Class E aircraft increased and the percentage of noisier Class A aircraft decreased compared with the same period in 1995. However, the average CNEL for the first quarter of 1996 was 0.7 dB higher than the same period during'I995. During the second quarter of 1996, the use of quieter Class E aircraft increased and the use of noisier Class A aircraft decreased compared with the same period in 1995. The average CNEL for the second quarter of 1996 was 0.9 dB less than the first quarter of 1995. No.clear correlation between CNEL and the type and mix of arriving and departing aircraft can be determined from information in these reports or previoUs reports. Since noise issues are of considerable importance to the City of Tustin, the Community Development Department will continue to City Council Report JWA Noise Abatement Quarterly Reports January 6, 1997 Page 3 monitor operations at John Wayne Airport unless otherwise directed by the City Council. Karen Peterson Assistant Planner ~li'zabeth A. ~insa6k ~ Community Development DirectOr ¢creport/j.~l-i. Attachments . John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Quarterly Reports for January 1, 199~ - March 31, 1996 and April 1, 1996-June 30, 1996. . Review of John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Reports, 1st and 2nd Quarters 1996 (Van Houten and Associates, Inc.) 'NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT For the period: January 1, 1996 through March 31, 1996 Prepared in accordance with: AIRPORT NOISE STANDARD STATE OF CALIFO~ Californi~ Adminisl~ve Code Title 21, Chapter 2.5, SubChapter 6: Division of Aeronautics Noise Standards · Submlttec~y: O.B. Schooley/ ' Airport Director John Wayne Airport, Orange County ATTACHMENT 1 INTRODUCTION This is the 93rd Quarterly Repoxt submi.ed by the County of Orange in accordance with the requirements of thc California Airport Noise Standards (Califo~ Admini.qtrative Code Title 21, Chapter 2.5, SubChapter 6: r~vision of Aeronautics Noise Standards). l~ff'ective lanuary 1, 19~86, the crittaSa for defining 'Noise Impact Area~ was changed from. 70 dB to 65 dB Commu~ty Noise F_qui~t Level (ClqEL). Under this criteria, lohn Wayne'Airport currently has a ~Noise Impact Area.' NOISE IMPACT SUMMARY Calm' Aeronautics Program has established guidelines ia 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 No'~e Equivalent Level (C2qEL) of more than 65 d~ define the ~Noise Impact Area.' John wayne Airport uses tea permanent remote monitoring stations (RMS) located ia Newport Beach, Santa Aaa, Tusfin and Irviae to measure noise levels, at the folio.wing locations: MONITOR STATIONS RMS-I: Golf Course, 3100 lxvino Av~, N~ ~ RMS-8: RMS-2:20152 S.W. Birch St, SamaAha RMS-9: RMS-3: 2139 Annivt:a'aa~ l.,an~N~nrporl;]~]~lctl RMS-21: RMS-6: 1131 Back Bay Drivo, N~-'wport Boach RMS-22: RMS-7: 17952 Bcncta Way, Tustin KMS-24: 1300 S. Grand Aveamo, Santa Aaa 17372 Eastman Street, lrvino 223 Nata, Newport Boach 2338 Tustin Ave., N~rport Beach 1918 Santiago, Newport Beach Figure 1 shows the Airport's 'Noise lmpac't Area" for the previous year (April 1, 1995 - March 31, 1996). The Figure 1 information was developed by Mestm-Greve Associates, Inc., ia consultation .with John Wayne Airport. CN~- values measm'ed for the period and current digitized land use information wexe u 'tflized to calculate the land area acreages, number of residences and estimated number of people within the-'Noise Impact Area~. RG~w K8684 5B1/96 -1- FIGURE t uNn~ ME.TfXE GREVE AS~X~A~ LEGEND [ ....... . ....... , ..............~_.................._~%.............. ~ ~ ~ dw~g ~) ~~le ~ U~ ~ 17~ ~ or 0.0~ ~ ~ N~ of P~le: 178 ~ ~ 2~ ~p~ ~ D. JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 65 dB CNEL IMPACT AREA APRIL 1995 - MARCH 1996 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT .AIRCRAYF TRAFFIC SUMMARY Thc Airport traflqc .summary for this quarter is shown in Table I and Figure 2 below. Air Carrier opcxational count histories and average daily deparmr~ counts are illustrat~ in Tables 9 & 10. LakNDING AND TAKEOFF OPERATIONS January_- March Month/Ouarter Jet Propeller Business (I) Total (2) Average Daily Zd~C,,ai2J.~ ~ ~ Ovetations . .let Operation~ January 6,566- 1,628 1,002 35,414 244 February 6,267 1,538 1,005 33,517 250 March ' 6.700 1.663 1.035 41.267 249 First Quarter 19,533 4,829 3,042 110,198 248 PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS: 75,631' ' 22,423 10,296 456,114 234 04/01/95 - 03/31/96 (2) Buimess Jet figures include a 5%'fact~ for operatioas not ideatified by the JWA noise monitor stations. Counts in this colunm are b~sed upon recanis provided by the local FAA represeatatives. · FIGURE 2 QUARTERLY AIRPORT TRAFFIC SUMMARY (lANDING AND TAKEOFF OPERATIONS) Jet Carrier Military i47 Prop Carder l' 4829 Business Jet '~ 3042 GA ProPeller. 19533 0 20000 82747 40000 60000 80000 ,100000 NUMBER OF OPERATIONS K86~ 5~1~6 -3- COMMUN/TY NOISE E~UI~ALENT LEVEL2 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 "0.0" entries in each table. Average Singl~ Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL) values for Air Carrier md'Business/et aircraft are shown in Tables 6 through-8. · .. For the twelve month period ending March 3 l, 1996, 71 dwelling units in Santa Ana Heights were in the "Noise Impacted Area" (65 dB CNEL); there was no change in the number of dwelling units in the '~Noise Impacted Area" from the previous twelve month period ending December 31, 1995. 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 Aha Heights Land Use Compatibility Program, approximamly 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 Aha Heights. An additional 15 residences have been made compatible through the County's AAI?. A total of 139 residences in Santa Ama Heights have been purchased or otherwise made compatible through the County's PurChase Assurance Program, Housing l~docafion Program, Acoustical Insulation Program or AAI?. TELEPHONE COMPLAINT CALLS ($anuary- March 1996) The Airports Access and Noise Office recdves and investigates no/se complaints from local c/tizens and all other sources. During the first quarter of 1996, the Offico rece/ved a total of 231 complaints fi'om local dt/zens, ~ 22.4% ~ from the 298 compla/nts received during the previous quarter and a ~ of 14.1% from the 269 complaints received during the same quarter of 1995. Figure 3 shows the local geographic area distribution of the quarterly telephone complaints. RG:jw K8684 6/4/96 FIGURE 3 QUARTERLY TELEPHONE COMPLAINTS SUMMARY S.A. Heights WestcJiff Eastbluff Balboa "' Other Area~ I I I I 0 20 40 60 80 NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS *Tustin/Orange ~*Balboa/Corona del Hat One caller was responsible One caller was responsible for 2q% of calls from Balboa Island. for 73% of calls from Tustin. APR. 1995 65.6 65.0 63.9 # DAYS 28- 2g 28 . .. · MAY 1995 65.8 6.~.2 64.0 #DAYS 28 31 31 # DAYS 30 30 :30 TABLE 2 EON(; TERM ME,~URED LEVELS Aircraft ~I~ from 4/95 through 3/96 58.0 29 58.6 27 58.6 29 54.9 58.8 29 28 56.8 59.0 27 27 58.4 59.2 18 27 56.2 26 57.9 23 56.5 3O 56..5 7.6 57.1 31 57.1 29 51.9 7 54.6 6 49.9 20 6'7.4 27 '6'7.9 27 68.O 3O Q-2 1995 65~ 6~0 ~L0 58,6 56.7 59.0 569 569 52.5 67.7 DAYS $~ ~ ~ ~ 74 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Y ~5 ~.0 ~.g ~.5 56.8 * 55.4 57.7 ~.g 55~ ~ ~ DAYS 31 ~ 31 ~ ~ 27 ~ 30 ~ 30 A~ ~5 ~3 653 ~.5 ~.7 55.6 57.8 57.7 55.1 ~ ~.5 ~DAYS 31 31 31 27 ~ ~ ~ 31 30 31 S~. ~5 65.7 65.1 ~.g 58.1 ~.0 ~8.5 5~6 56.1 49.5 ~.7 DAYS ~ 30 30 ~ ~ 18 ~ ~ 30 30 Q-3 199~ 66~0 6SA 64.3 57,2 55.7 57~9 57~S 5~7 48~ 67-~ ~ DAYS ~ 91 ~ ~ ~ 71 ~ ~ ~ 91 ~. 1~5 65.7 63A ~.0 58.4 55.g 59.7 57~ 57.7 49~ g DAYS 31 31 31 29 ~ 29 ~ 31 31 31 NOV. 1~5 ~.0 65.6 ~.0 58~ ~.7 59.1 55~ 57.4 51~ g DAYS 30 3O 3O 27 27 ~ ~ 30 ~ 30 D~ ~5 65.7 65~ ~ 5~ 57.6 59~ ~.g 57~ 50~ ~.7 gDAYS 3I 31 31 ~ ~ ~ 3O 3O 3O 5~.7 59.3 ~ 57.4 .50.2 81 81 77 91 90 57.6 59.1 57.7 5TM 49.8 30 30 3O 3O 28 57.9 59.4 56.7 57.5 51.4 29 29 29' 29 28 58.1 59.2 56.4 56.7 51.9 31 31 28 31 31 5Al 59.1 29 59.1 31 Q-4 1995 6~s 6s~ 64,1 # DAYS 92 92 92 JAN. 1996 65.8 65.5 64.0 # DAYS 31 31 30 FEB, 1996 66~ 65.8 64.5 # DAYS 29 29 29 MAIL 1996 66.3 65.9 643 # DAYS 31 31 31 .- Q-11996 6~2 6&7 6~3 # DAYS 91 91 90 675 92 67.g 31 68.0 67.7 28 Q-2 1995 T~RU Q-1 1996: TOTAL 66.0 65.3 64.2 # DAYS 361 363 363 Q-1 TOTAL ~.0 ' 653 ~ DAYS 355 357 329 FROM PREVIOUS 4 QUARTERS: 0.0 0.0 0.1 . 58.3 56.9 58.9 57.1 56.9 50_3 67.g 330 314 324 323 357 199. 355 58.1 56:2 5Ag 57.1 56.7 50_3 - 67.7 327 306 310 303 336 279 338 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.0 -0.2 0.0 - 0.1 -5- P. MS NUMBER (dB Date 1. 2 TABLE 3 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION ~'ANUARY 1996 3 21 22 24 6 1 62.7 59.2 0.(P' 0.0~ · .. 2 65.1 63.4 64.2 55.8 3 65.5 64.3 63.9 54.9 4 65.5 62.2 64.6 59.4 5 66.3 63.5 ' 64.3 59.5 6 64.7 61.1 64.1 56.3 7 65.6 60.0 64.1 55.5 8 65.2 61.4 63.8 56.9 9 65.4 64.0 63.7 58.4 10 66.4 63.1 66.9 56.3 11 64.8 61.0 63.3 52.2 12 65.9 63.5 63.2 56.3 13 63.2 6Z2 6i.0 55.6 14 66.2 64.2 63.8 e. 58.2. 15 66.3 64.8 64.4 59.3' 16 66.4 65.7 64.6 59.3 17 65.7 63.4 64.9 0.0' 18 66.5 65.5 64.3 0.0' 19 67.0 65.3 65.5 0.0' 20 64.6 62.7 62.1 0.0' 21 66.8 65.1 64.5 0.0' 22 66.5 75.6 64.5 59.0 23 66.1 65.0 63.7 59.1 24 66.2 64.4 61.8 59.5 - 25 66.5 65.8 63.3 58.9 26 66.7 66.3 64.6 60.0 27 63.8 62.4 62.0 57.5 28 66:1 64.2 63.5 58.8 29 66.7 65.1 64.8 59.4 30 65.8 64.6 63.7 59.2 31 65.2 64.7 61.5 59.3 0.0' 0.0' 0.0' . 55.5 59.0 57.0 52.1 5513 55.6 59.9 60.6 58.8 59.2 60.5 57.4 56.4 57.5 54.4 52.4 57.8 57.3 57.8 58.5 56.4 57.1 58.8 55.5 54.8 58.1 58.7 53.4 54.9 65.5 56.1 57.3 53.5 56.0 59.7 55.9 56.2 58.9 57.6 58.3 59.7 56.8 58.7 59.2 55.3 56.9 59.7 56.9 58.2 59.0 56.0 58.7 60.9 58.2 55.2 56.9 53.8 52.6 56.6 58.4 56.6 60.1 ~ 58.6 59.1 59.6 56.4 61.0 60.1 58.0 58.8 60.0 56.5 58.5 60.5 57.2 56.3 57.8 54.5 57.9 59.5 56.2 59.3 60.2 57.7 59.8 60.0 56.0 58.5 58.9 56.2 Pis -- 31 31 30 25 30 30 30 En.Avg'~ 65.8 65.5 64.0 58.1 57.6 59.1 57.7 * Insufficient d~ 0.0' 56.0 55.6 57.9 56.3 51.2 53.5 54.3 58.9 53.6 57.6 53.3 52.4 57.6 58.9 60.2 58.3 59.6 57.6 54.2 58.2 54.9 55.9 57.9 59.0 57.7 56.5 57.9 56.8 57.9 60.5 30 57.2 0.0' 49.9 46.7' 45.6 50.0 47.0 50.1 46.1 44.8 40.8 0.0' 50.2 47.8 45.3' 44.1 45.4 49.0 53.1 50.3 52.0 42.8 46.7 50.8 51.2 46.0 49.9 47.2 0.0' 53.3 52.1 56.6 28 49.8 62.9 66.2 67.9 67.8 67.7 64.6 66.1 66.9 67.9 64.8 64.4 67.2 65.3 67.6 68.7 70.2 68.8 69.8 68.6 65.6 69.2 67.9 68.1 68.8 69.3 66.9 68.0 67.9 68.1 70.8 31 67.8 Rc,-.~ Date 1 2 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION FEBRUARY 1996 3 21 22 24 6 7 8 9 1 67.2 66.2 2 67.0 65.9 3 64.8 64.5 4 67.3 66.0 5 66.2 65.4 6 67.5 66.4 7 67.3 61.7' 8 67.5 59.8 9 66.8 65.9 10 65.4 64.8 11 66.3 64.5 12 65.1 64.7 13 66.1 65~8 14 65.9 65.9 15 67.5 67.6 16 67.0 67.2 17 65.0 65.2 18 65.7 65.6 19 66.6 66.5 . 20 66.8 67.2 21 66.8 67.1 22 66.9 67.0 23 66.2 65.8 24 64.5 64.0 25 66.1 66.4 26 '66.3 66.2 27 66.3 65.5 28 67.4 66.5 29 67.3 66.1 'DPts = 29 29 En.Avg-- 66.5 65.8 65.4'" 61.0 58.5 60.8 5T3 58.4 50.4 68:5 65.1 60.5 59.5 61.3 56.3 59.8 50.9 68.7 62.3 57.1 56.6 57.9 54.8 55.3 49.0 66.2 65.0 59.7 58.0 60.1 57.4 55.7 56.0 66.7 64.2 59.2 57.3 59.4 57.0 57.8 48.3 68.1 64.9 57.7 56.5 58.3 58.0 57.8 52.9 67.8 65.1 57.6 57.5 60.0 56.0 51.2 52.5 66.5 66.1 59.3 59.9 59.9 56.7 56.1 53.1 67.8 64.4 59.1 59.1 59.9 55.0 58.7 47.5 68.5 63.1 58.2 57. I 58.7 55.2 57.1 46.4 66.6 64.8 59.7 58.0 60.4 58.9 57.2 50.8 67.4 63.4 56.0 55.2 58.3 54.3 53.5 52.2 66.8 64.5-- 59.2 57.9 59.0 57.0 55~5 49'.2 67.6 64.6 59.6 57.6 59.5 56.0 58.9 52.1 68.8 67.3 59.7' 58.6 59.9 57.5 57.9 46.9 67.8 64.2 56.0 55.1 55.6 57.2 57.7 47.3. 68.3 63.2 57.5 56.5 57.6 56.4 57.2 46.1 66.7 63.6 58.9 58.2 59.4 56.9 57.8 47.3 68.7 64.4 59.5 59.4 60.0 57.1 60.0 46.1 69.9 64.4 58.8 55.4 56.3 57.3 60.0 51.9 69.7 64.2 59.2 59.2 60.3 56.9 59.6 54.5 69.4 63.9 61.0 58.8 60.0 56.6 56.5 52.1 68.3 64.5 56.5 50.6 55.1 54.1 53.8 52.7 66.7 62.5 57.3 57.6 58.0 55.7 55.6 54.8 67.3 64.9 60.3 57.6 61.0 58.4 56.7 48.4 67.1 64.0 ~- 60.6 58.4 60.2 57.3 57.5 52.9 67.9 63.6 59.5 58.8 58.8 56.3 60.5 0.0' 68.5 64.6 59.2 58.8 59.7 ' 56.8 55.8 51.4 67.8 64.9 60.2 59.1 60.3 57.1 55.0 51.6 67.5 29 29 29 29 29 29 28 29 64.5 59.1 57.9 59.4 56.7 57.5 51.4 68.0' itC:j,, RMS NUMBER (dB CNEL) Date I "2 1 68.3 66.6 TABLE 5 DALLY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION MARCH 1996 3 21 22 24 6 7 50.8 2 63.6 63.7 3 67.5 66.0 4 66.1 66.1 5 66.5 66.1 6 67.1 · 67.0 7 65.7 65.6 8 66.6 66.1 9 63.7 63.2 10 66.4 66.0 11 65.9 65.8 12 65.8 66.3 13 67.1 66.4 · 14 67.0 66.9 15 66.8. 67.1 16 65.1 64.3 17 67.4 66.9 18 . 66.9 66.3 19 66.0 66.8 20 65.5 65.0 21 66.6 66.1 22 66.5 65.9 23 64.2 63.7 24 66.3 65.4 25 66.4 65.7 26 65.4 65.1 27 66.6 65.5 28 66.3 65.9 29 67.5 67.0 30 64.8 64.3 31 66.6 ' 66.0 En.Avg= 66.3 65.9 65.8 59.7 59.5' 60.4 57.5 54.8 61.8' " 56.6 55.7 56.3 53.3 51.7 65.4 59.0 59.3 60.1 56.1 56.2 63.7 59.0 58.6 58.9 56.0 60.3 65.5 61.8 58.1' 59.9 57.4 57.7 . · 64.9 59.2 58.3 59.6 57.6 53.5 63.4 56.9 56.1 56.9 53.8 53.3 63.9 57.7 56.9 57.8 55.9 52.3 60.8 54.6 55'4 54.7 0.0' 52.6 64.3 58,9 57.8 58.6 0.0' 57.6 63.9 59.1 58.7 59.4 57.5 58.7 64.1 60.1 59.4 60.1 56.6 59.8 66.9 60.1 59.3 61.0 58.5 58.0 65.1 60.3 59.1 60.7 57.6 55.4 65.4 60.7 58.9 60.7 58.0 55.9 63.6 57.3 57.0 58.2 55.9 54.4 64.6 59.9 58.5 59.9 57.7 - 57.4 64.2 59.7 58.2 59.9 55.6 57.7 64.1 58.7 57.3 58.8 56.8 58.1 63.5 57.7 56.1 58.0 53.8 56.6 64.4 59.6 58.6 58.9 , 54.4 58.7' 64.7 60.2 59.5 60.7 57.0 58.8 62.2 58.3 56.8 57.7 55.1 53.3 64.4 56.7 51.3 56.1 56.6 56.3 64.4 57.6 56.4 57.4 57.2 57.2 63.4 58.9 57.4 58.4 56.3 55.1 64.0 58.8 58.8 59.2 55.0 55.7 64.4 60.3 59.3 60.5 56.2 58.2 65.4 60.2 59.5 60.6 57.1 55.8 62.8 57.4 57.4 58.0 54.3 . 52.8 64.6 59.8 58.6 59.7 0.0' 55.0 31 31 31 31 28 31 64.3 59.1 58.1 59.2 56.4 56.7 46.7 46.9 48.8 49.8 54.2 46.3 52,2 53.9 42.6 43.4 51.5 48.8 50.3 52.4 45.4 46.1 49.6 59.9 40.7 40.6 47.0 45.3 45.6 52.4 51.5 49.9 53.2 54.1 59.9 45.O 31 51.9 6~.6 68.0 0.0' 68.8 66.9 63.4 66.1 65.6 68.0 68.5 68.8 67.4 68.8 68.4 66.2 63.5 68.3 68.6 69.1 69.3 69.2 66.0 67.6 68.0 66.9 68.0 68.5 67.8 0.0' 0.0' 67.7 -8- COMMERCIAL Class A TABLE 6 MEASLrRED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS January- March 1996 l)cpamu~ Nois: Monilor StaIion dB SENEL Americ~ Wes~ F~IEx No,~hw~st TWA USAir · ~' AC T~e B'7374 325 Avera~ 94.2 93.7 91.0 F/3 ' t/5.7 co~ 0~) (267) 0n) (z~) C275) ' B757 215 A~,e 91.4 91.5 IM).8 85.4 $5.3 Co~, (213) (17~) (209) (lS2) · (lS7) MI)g0 116 Aver~ 993 993 9g.4 93.1 9L7 Co~, (116) (91) (1,~) (lO~) (lO~) A320 156 Av~-age 93.1 92.9 91.0 $5.1 $5.6 Cou.i (156) (133) (14i9 (138) (139) c. oont 0263 ('~4) 017) (2~ 13757 67 Average 94.4 95.2 92.1 g7.8 g6.7 Co.~ (0'7) (~5) (66) ( 60 (59) MD~ 2 Average 101.8 101.8 99.3 90.5 g6.2 co~ (2) (2) (2) (2) ( co~ (91) (71) (~) (80 ( B757 85 Avera~ 953 94.5 93.1 85.5 $5.4 co~t (85) (72) (z~) (7~) (70) co~ (76) (7~) (75) (w) ( ~ (~) (zo) (~) ( ~ ( ~20 ~ A~ 9f0 ~.I ~ ~ ~.~ ~7 1 A~ 93.9 93.6 91~ ~.0 gl.g ~ (X) ( 0 (~) ( 0 ( ~ 55g A~ 9g.4 9~0 ~.g 91.7 ~.g ~ (~3) (474) (~32) (~ ~ 176 A~ ~.g ~.6 ~.1 ~ $5.1 ~ 074) (tZ2) 07O) 0Zg) (t~) ~ (10) (I~) ' (1SS) (1~) (143) ~20 1~ A~ 91.0 ~.9 ~ ~ $5.6 ~ 0~) (94) 0o3) (~) ( ~ ~ A~ 94.8 ~.0 ~ ~.4 ~.~ ~ (~) (200 (~) ~o3) (~) BT~T ~ Av~ 91.8 91.4 ~.4 ~.0 ~ (~) (6s) (~) (~) ( ~57 ~ A~ ~3 943 ~1 ~.0 ~57 ~ ' A~ ~ ~3 95~ ~ ~0 ~ (~) ( ~ ( ~ (75) ( RMS-24 R.MS-6 (192) (Ill') 93.2 90.4 (109) (105) (143) (145) g4.1 (305) 8'7.1 83.4 (62) ( 91.9 g8.9 (~) ( 1~3 85.0 (85) ( 1~6.5 82.8 ('r0 (?5) 81.6 (~S) ~1.1 ~.6 (~) ~ .4 ~3 ~.g ( 0 (1) ~.6 $5.6 0~) 062) 91~ 0~o) ~.7 0o0 ~3 ~.g ~os) ~.6 (70) ~.6 (63) . (62) 91.0 (~) ($5) ~.I (~) RG:jw I~684 6/4/96 -9- Class AA TABLE 7 MEASURED AVERAGE SINGI~ EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS Sa~uar?- 1Harsh 1~9~_ D~~ Noise Monitor AC Type # Deps* RMg-I R.k~2 RMV3 RMS-21 RMS-22 RMS-24 P, MS~ Am~:tica We~ B7374 156 A~g~ 92.8 92.7 8'9.6 g6.2 g$.g 85.7 ~2.4 Cou~ (15~ (~) (149) (~9) (142) ~s7 ~ A~ ~a ~.4 '~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~o ~ (~4) .~) (~) (6~ ~) ~o) ~ ~2 A~ ~.~ 9L~ ~3 ~.7 ~.o ~.2 ~6 ~ (~ (~ (~ (~ (~ ~7 ~4 a~ 9L0 ~l.~ ~.7 ~ ~0 SL~ ~.~ ~ (~4) (~) (~) (~0) (~2) (!3) (2) ~7 ~ a~ 9~ ~o ~.6 ~.4 ~.7 ~.~ ~ (~) (6~) (~) (s0 (~) (s~) (69) ~ (~]) (2~ ]) (~0) ~0) ~os) (~ 0~) ~ 176 A~ ~ 93.1 ~.1 g5.4 ~.7 g52 81.9 ~ (~ (~ 07O) (~ (~) 06~) 0~) ~20 ~ A~ ~.~ ~.6 ~.4 ~.S S~3 ~.6 ~.7 ~ 070 04~) 062) 054) 0~2) (~ ~57 247 A~ 91.4 91.6 ~ ~ ~.g g5.4 COMMERCIAL Class E Carrier AC Typ~ # Deps* RMg-I RMS-2 Depm Nois~ Monitor Station dB SENEL RMS-3 RMV21 RMV22 RMV24 RMIP~ ~ ~74 669. A~ 9O.2 9O.7 SSa Co~ (66~) (~S~ (~S) (~) (S~) ~ W~ ~ 956 A~ ~.7 91.0 ~4 E5.1 ~.4 E52 81.7 ~ (~ (~ (~2) ~~ B~ ~4 A~ 91~ 91.7 Sg.~ ~ ~.4 ~.6 EL1 ~ (~) (~ ~) ~ ~) ~ ~2) ~ ~7 ~0 A~ ~.7 ~ ~.1 ~ ~.0 ~.~ Sl.4 # Dcps equals thc numbcr of aircraft deparau~ operation SENEL values measured at one or more dcp~ noise mon/tor stations. Not every dep~ is measured at cve~3r monitor. RG:jw K8684 6/4/96 TABLE 8 MEASLrRED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOS~ LEVELS 5anuary- Mar~h 1996 COMMUTER Dcpam~ Noise Monitor Station dB SENEL Carrier AC Type # Deps* R_MS-1 RMS-2 RMS-3 RMS-6 Skywest El20 555 Awvag¢ 80.3 82.0 81.5 79.7 (Delta C. onnecZ) Count (SOT) (444) (376) (3) SW4 137 Average 83.1 80.9 82.3 81.6 count (68) (65) (7a) (a) West Air BA31 510 Average 81.7 80.7 82.2 81.5 (United Express) Coum (264) (257) (303) (12) Wings West BA31 411 Average 81.2 80.3 81.6 81.0 (Ameri~ Eagle) Count (292) (244) (254) (9) GENERAL AVIATION I)~p~ Nois~ Monitor Station dB SENEL # Deps* RMS- 1 RMS-2 RMS-3 RMS-6 Private Jets 1364 Average 91.0 90.2 91.6 86.4 Count (133T) (1121) (1255) (519) * # Deps equals the number of aircra~ depaxam~ operation SENEL Values measured at one or more departure noise monitor stations. Not every departure is ~ at eveay monitor. ' RG:jw K1t684 5/31/96 -11- NOISE ABATEMENT COMM~i~i~E MEE~G The ~otm Wayne Airport Noise Abatement.Committee did not meet during the calendar quarter between January 1, 1996, and March 31, 1996. - .. -14- NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT For the period: April 1, 1996 through June 30, 1996 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: John Wayne Airport, Orange County INTRODUCTION This is the 94th 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 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 monitoring stations (KMS) located in Newport Beach, Santa Ana, Tustin and Irvine to measure noise levels, at the following locations: MONITOR STATIONS RMS-I: Golf Course, 3100 lrvine Ave., Newport Beach RMS-8: RMS-2:20152 S.W. Birch St., Santa Ana RMS-9: RMS-3: 2139 Anniversary Lane, Newport Beach RMS-21: RMS-6: 1131 Back Bay Drive, Newport Beach RMS-22: RMS-7: 17952 Beneta Way, Tustin RMS-24: 1300 S. Grand Avenue, Santa Ana 17372 Eastman Street, h-vine 223 Nam, Newport Beach 2338 Tustin Ave., Newport Beach 1918 Santiago, Newport Beach Figure 1 shows the Airport's "Noise Impact Area" for the previous year (April 1, 1995 - March 31, 1996). The Figure 1 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 utili:r~d to calculate the land area acreages, number of residences and estimated number of people within the "Noise Impact Area". RG:jw K9500 ~ 0/4~9~ - 1 - FIGURE I BRISTOL STREET SOUTH RMS 1 ORCHARD DRNE -11- fANE 11111111 -- -- UNIVERSITY DRJVE LEGEND j..~lulti-Family Residential (Numtna- indicates dwclling uni~) Incompatible Land Use Area: 17.2 acres or 0.028 square miles Number of Dwellings: 71 Number of People: 178 (Based on 2.5 people per D. U.) JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 65 dB CNEL IMPACT AREA JULY 1995 - JUNE 1996 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT -2- AIRCRAFt TRAFFIC SUMMARY The Airport traffic summary for this quarter is shown ia Table I and Figure 2 below. Air Carrier operational count histories and average daily departure counts arc illustrated ia Tables 9 & 10. TABLE 1 LANDING AND TAKEOFF OPERATIONS April - June 1996 Jet Propeller Business (I) Total (2) Average Daily Month/Ouar~r ~ Air Carriers ~ _Operations Set Operations April 6,926 1,744 959 40,554 262 May 7,175 1,839 903 44,630 260 June ...6,667 1 715 .1,089 ~ 258 _ Second Quarter 20,768 5,298 2,951 126,844 260 PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS:' 78,092 22,551 11,034 454,770 244 07/01/95 - 06/30/96 NOTE: (1) Business Jet figm'es include a 5% factor for operations not identified by the JWA noise monitor stations. (2) Counts in thin eoluma are based upon records provided by the local FAA representatives. FIGURE 2 GUARTERLY AIRPORT TRAFFIC SUMMARy' (LANDING AND TAKEOFF OPERATIONS) April - June 1996 Jet Carrier Military ~~100 Prop Carrier I 5298 Business Jet ~ 2951 GA Propeller 20768 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 NUMBER OF OPERATIONS 97727 100000 10t9/96 -3- COMMifNITY NOISE E~OIVALENT LEVEI.~ 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 "0.0" entries in each table. Average Single .Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL) values for Air Carrier and Business Jet aircraf~ are shown in Tables 6 through 8. For the twelve month period ending June 30, 1996, 71 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" fi-om the previous twelve month period ending March 31, 1996. The State has approved several remedies of aircraf~ 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 Ana 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 Aha Heights Acoustical Insulation Program" with the acronym "SAH AIP".) An additional 15 residences have been made compatible through the County's SAIl AIP. A tal of 139 residences in Santa_Ana Heights have been purchased or otherwise made compatible through e~C. oun.ty's' Purchase AssumrFce Program, Housing Relocation Program, Acoustical Insulation Program or ~,od-t mt,. ' .... TELEPHONE COMPLAINT CALI~ (April- June 1996). The Airport's Access and Noise Office receives and investigates noise complaints from local citizens and all other sources. During the second quarter of 1.996, the Office received a total of 486 complaints from lOcal citizens, a 110.3% ~crease from the 231 complaints received during the previous quarter and an increase of 32.0% from the 368 complaints received during the same quarter of 1995. Figure 3 shows the local geographic area distribution of the quarterly telephone complaints. FIGURE 3 QUARTERLY TELEPHONE COMPLAINTS SUMMARY s.A- Heights Westcaff Balboa*' 1 1 i lo · · · I I I I 0 50 100 150 200 NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS RG.~w I<9500 ' 10110/96 *Tustin/Orange **Balboa/Corona Del Mar. One caller was responsible for 35% of the calls from Westcliff. P,~S ~ER (aB CNEL) 1_ JULY 1995 66.0 .64.8 # DAYS 31 30 AUG. 1995 66.3 653 # DAYS 31 31 SEPT. 1995 65.7 65.1 # DAYS 30 30 Q-3 1995 66.0 65.1 # DAYS 92 91 OCT. 1995 65.7 65.4 #DAYS 31 31 NOV. 1995 66.0 65.6 # DAYS 30 30 DEC. 1995 65.7 65.2 #DAYS 31 31 TABLE 2 LONG TERM MEASURED LEVELS Aircraft CNEL from 7/95 through 6/96 ! 3.L 2_g% 2.~.4 _.6 7__ a_.. ~__ 64.5 56.8 55.4 57.7 56.8 55.9 48.2 67.5 31 29 19 27 22 30 29 30 64.5 56.7 55.6 57.g 57.7 55.1 48.5 67.5 31 27 27 26 29 31 30 31 63.8 58.1 56.0 58.5 58.6 56.1 49.5 67.7 30 23 23 l# 29 29 30 30 643 57.2 55.7 57.9 573 92 79 69 71 80 64.0 58.4 55.8 59.7 57.9 31 29 29 29 19 64.0 58.2 56.7 59. I 55.9 30 27 27 27 28 64.2 58.2 57.6 59.2 56.8 31 25 25 25 30 Q-4 1995 65.8 65.4 64.1 # DAYS 92 92 9,~, JAN. 1996 65.8 65.5 64.0 # DAYS 31 31 30 FEB. 1996 66.5 65.8 64.5 # DAYS 29 29 29 ,MAR. 1996 66.3 65.9 643 # DAYS 31 31 31 Q-i 1996 66.2 65.7 64.3 #DAYS 91 91 90 APR. 1996 65.6 65.0 64.4 # DAYS 30 30 30 MAY 1996 65.5 65.1 64.2 # DAYS 31 31 31 JUNE 1996 65.8 65.4 65.3 # DAYS 30 30 30 Q-2 1996 65.6 652 64.7 # DAYS 91 91 91 583 81 58.1 25 59.1 29 59.1 31 58.8 85 58.2 28 57.7 31 56.9 26 57.7 56.7 59.3 81 81 57.6 59.1 30 30 573 59.4 29 29 58. I 59z2 31 31 57.9 59.2 57.6 58.8 28 28 ' 57.9 59.5 31 26 58.0 · 59.6 30 30 57.8 59-~ 56.8 77 57.7 30 56.7 29 56.4 28 57.0 87 56.6 29 56.4 30 56.8 29 55.7 57.7 31 57.4 30 57.2 30 57.4 91 57.2 30 57.5 29 56.7 31 57.1 9O 56.3 29 56.8 31 56.6 29 56.6 48.8 89 49.2 31 51.2 29 50.2 30 50.2 9O 49.8 28 51.4 28 51.9 31 51.2 87 50.7 28 47.9 30 50.1 26 49.7 67.5 91 67.9 31 67.9 30 67.7 31 67.8 92 67.8 31 68.0 29 67.7 28 67.8 67.8 11 68.1 30 69.4 15 Q-3 1995 THRU Q-2 1996: TOTAL 65.9 65.3 64.3 # DAYS 366 365 365 Q-2 1995 THRU Q-11996 (Prev/ous 4 Quart~): TOTAL 66.0 65.3 64.2 # DAYS 361 363 363 CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS 4 QUARTERS: -0.1 0.0 0.1 58.0 57-2 59.0 57.1 56.8 50.0 67.9 331 329 326 332 360 350 327 583 56.9 58.9 57.1 56.9 50.3 67.8 330 314 324 323 357 299 355 -0.3 03 0.1 0.0 -0. I -0.3 0.1 RG:jw K9500 10/9/96 -5- RMS NIJM~ (dB CNEL) Date: 1 2 TABLE 3 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION APRIL 1996 3 ~ 21 22 24 6 7 8 9 I 66.3 65.9 2 6517 65.3 3 65.9 65.7 4 66.2 65.8 5 64.1 63.1 6 62.3 61.5 7 65.1 64.2 8 65.9 65.3 9 65.3 65.4 10 65.7 65.3 11 65.6 65.3 12 66.5 66.0 13 65.0 63.8 14 66.6 6516 15 65.5 64.8 16 65.3 64.8 17 65.3 64.6 18 65.8 65.5 19 65.7 64.8 20 64.2 63.3 21 65.8 65.2 22 66.3 65.4 23 65.3 65.0 24 66.2 65.4 25 66.7 66.1 26 66.6 65.8 27 63.4 63.2 28 66.9 66.0 29 65.1 64.3 30 65.0 63.7 DPts = 30 30 En.Avg= 65.6 65.0 * Insuf6ci~nt data 64.1 59.1 56.9 59.2 54.7 58.9 64.2 59.5 58.7 59.4 62.1 57.6 64.0 59.9 59.1 60.4 58.5 56.3 64.4 59.4 57.7 59.5 56.7 54.6 64.2 50.1 51.3 52.4 56.3 0.0 60.3 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 53.0 48.1 62.7 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 55.2 53.3 63.6 53.6 53.5 53.7 55.8 55.5 64.0 58.5 58.8 59.5 55.9 57.6 64.9 59.2 59.2 60.0 56.3 '58.2 64.9 58.2 58.9 59.7 56.5 55.4 65.2 59.6 60.2 60.8 56.9 57.2 63.2 ~' 57.3 58.0 58.2 56.4 54.9 64.7 56.9 57.1 58.3 61.1 54.7 64.0 57.0 56.1 58.0 54.4 55.3 63.7 57.6 58.3 58.8 54.7 59.3' 63.5 58.6 58.8 59.5 57.6 59.3 ,, 65.5 59.9 58.6 60.0 58.0 56.3 64.6 58.9 57.9 59.1 55.0 55.1 62.6 57.4 56.8 57.8 53.6' 54.7 63.7 59.0 57.7 59.3 56.7 56.4 64.2 58.2 53.0 58.3 54.7 54.6 63.7 57.8 56.7 57.6 0.0 * 57.6 63.9 58.5 58.5 59.2 55.4 54.6 67.8 60.0 57.8 59.9 56.4 54.7 67.0 58.4 57.9 .58.4 54.2 59.0 64.3 56.1 56.2 57.1 53.1 56.9 66.8 60.4 58.5 60.5 57.6 53.7 63.0 53.7 50.5 55.3 51.9 51.0 65.1 55.7 56.2 57. I 52.6 55.4 49.2 49.1 50.6 53.0 0.0 * 40.4 49.7 51.4 49.8 50.9 52.5 47.2 39.7 45.9 50.7 47.9 47.5 53.6 55.5 . 50.6 50.4 55.5 0.0 * 46.7 49.9 47.3 42.8 40.5 55.9 43.3 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 *' 0.0 * 0.0 * 69.4 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0. 67.3 66.8 67.4 68.0 67.8 69.4 67.4 68.0 65.2 67.3 30 28 28 28 29 29 28 11 64.4 58.2 57.6 58.8 56.6 56.3 50.7 67.8 RG:jw I(9500 10/9196 TABLE 4 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION MAY 1996 RMS ~ER (dB CNEL) Dat~ 1 2 3 21 22 24 6 1 65.6 64.6 2 65.3 64.9 3 66.3 66.0 4 64.2 63.5 5 65.8 65.1 6 65.3 64.8 7 64.9 65.8 8 65.3 65.5 9 65.5 65.1' 10 66.7 66.4 11 64.0 63.4 12 64.5 64.3 13 65.8 64.5 14~ 66.1 65.3 15 65.9 65.4 16 66.3 65.9 17 67.2 66.5 18 64.0 64.6 19 66.3 65.7 20 66.6 66.2 21 65.4 65.1 22 65.2 64.4 23 66.7 66.1 24 66.2 65.6 25 63.7 63.2 26 63.0 63.1 27 65.0 64.7 28 65.4 65.2 '29 65.1 65.0 30 65.2 64.7 31 65.9 65.8 DPts = 31 31 En.Avg= 65.5 65.1 * Imufficicnt data RO:jw K9500 10/9/96 65.8 66.4 65.1 64.6 63.9 63.3 63.5 63.9 63.8 65.0 62.3 62.3 63.6 64.2 63.8 65.5 64.5 62.0 64.0 64.5 63.8 63.7 64.9 64:5 62.2 62.2 63.6 66.7 63.6 64.0 · 64.5' 56.4 57.7 58.8 55.7 57.7 57.9 58.4 58.0 58.5 58.3 56.8 56.3 57.1' ," 57.9 57.8 58.7 58.2 56.8 58.0 57.5 57.7 58.0 59.8 58.4 56.1 56.7 57.3 57.5 57.2 57.8 58.2 57.7 58.1 53.0 58.4 52.5 54.6 58.9 0.0 * 57.0 56.6 0.0 * 55.3 57.5 0.0 * 55.7 54.7 0.0 * 59.8 58.7 0.0 * 55.1 59.5 0.0 * 55.3 58.0 55.9 56.2 58.1 59.5 56.7 56.5 58.6 54.5 56.1 57.3 51.3 55.3 60.1 52.7 58.3 60.2 56.1 58.2 59.9 57.3 58.5 61.5 0.0 * 59.3 59.8 56.6 56.3 57.9 54.4 57.8 60.1 57.5 55.0 62.9 57.8 57.7 59.8 56.2 58.5 59.9 55.3 59.0 61.0 57.5 59.1 60.4 56.8 57.4 57.9 54.1 57.1 57.9 60.6 58.2 59.7 56.3 60.3 59.5 57.3 58.1 58.9 55.1 56.7 59.4 56.0 57.9 60.3 57.4 55.2 57.4 57.4 55.7 54.3 55.4 57.0 59.0 56.5 56.0 50.8 53.2 57.7 57.9 56.8 59.3 55.7 54.1 56.3 55.8 58.7 58.6 57.4 56.2 54.8 54.1 58.2 58.8 58.3 57.6 56.2 45.0 40.9 46.4 0.0 * 34.4 42.7 38.5 38.6 51.8 48.8 38.0 41.6 46.9 37.8 45.2 48.6 50.0 48.3 50.6 45.5 50.8 46.1 52.9 48.6 49.2 48.6 51.6 50.5 43.7 46.0 49.0 68.0 68.5 69.4 66.8 67.9 68.0 68.2 68.4 68.3 68.3 65.8 67.8 68.6' 68.4 69.0 68.6 68.2 66.8 68.3 67~8 68.4 68.6 68.6 68.3 66.2 67.0 68.1 68.8 68.1 69.0 0.0 * -7- 31 3~ 31 26 30 31 30 30 64.2 57.7 57.9 59.5 56.4 56.8 47.9 68.1 RMS NUMBER (dB CNEL) Date 1 2 TABLE 5 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION JUNE 1996 3 .21 22 24 6 7 8 9 1 64.6 64.6 · 3 65.0 64.8 4 65.2 64.9 5 65.1 64.7 6 66.1 65.7 7 '66.6 66.7 8 64.6 65.2 9' 65.0 64.5 10 65.3 65.1 11 65.9 65.4 12 65.7 65.0 13 66.1 65.4 14 66.6 66.1 15 64.0 63.1 16 65.8 65.1 17 66.2 65.9 18 66.1 66.4 19 66.2 65.5 20 66.6 66.2 21 66.7 65.9 22 65.7 65.2 23 65.7 65.1 24 66.1 65.5 25 65.4 64.9 26 65.8 65.7 27 66.6 65.5 28 67.0 66.6 29 64.8 64.5 30 65.5 64.9 DPts ~ 30 30 En.Avg= 65.8 65.4 * Insufficient data RO.~w I<9500 10/9/96 64.6 57.9 56.4 58.2 56.6 63.6 56.6 56.3 58.2 56.0 63.7 56.5 57.2 58.7 54.8 63.8 56.1 58.1 59.0 57.2 64.2 56.8 58.1 59.3 55.0 65.5 56.9 58.8 60.4 56.9 67.0 58.0 59.5 60.8 57.9 66.1 55.9 56.4 58.5 54.8 67.0 55.8 57.9 58.3 0.0 65.3 55.9 55.9 59.6 54.9 65.8 57.8 58.5 60.1 55.2 66.3 ~ 57.1 59.1 60.0 56.8 65.7 57.2 58.5 59.7 55.8 67.2 58.0 59.5 61.1 58.1 62.7 55.6 57.0 57.8 54.1 64.0 56.6 57.9 59.4 57.9 65.3 58.6 54.7 59.7 55.6 65.2 56.7 57.7 59.3 · 54.4 66.0 56.3 58.5 62.2 57.5 66.1 0.0 * 58.6 60.2 56.4 66.4 0.0 * 59.4 60.2 57.7 67.2 0.0 * 57.5 58.9 55.7 65.2 0.0 * 58.8 60.1 56.2 65.1 56.2 58.4 60.0 55.9 64.2 57.7 58.7 60.1 57.2 64.9 58.1 59.1 60.2 57.6 65.0 58.0 58.4 60.0 57.5 65.9 57.9 58.4 60.0 59.1 · 62.9 53.9 55.3 57. f 59.1 63.3 55.2 55.4 56.9 58.3 52.2 53.2 55.8 57.0 58.5 57.8 57.0 54.0 57.1 57.0 58.2 58.6 55.3 57.0 56.2 56.0 56.5 56.8 58.2 0.0 58.9 55.8 58.3 58.5 57.3 56.8 55.1 53.5 50.4 52.6 45.0 55.8 49.8, 50.2 48.3 48.6 51.7 45.9 37.0 49.8 49.4 51.1 51.2 46.7 0.0 * 47.2 52.1 50.5 50.7 · 4'2.5 0.0 * 43.6 0.0 * 48.6 48.5 46.2 0.0 * 56.4 46.1 49.5 0.0 * 68.1 0.0 * 66.7 69.4 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 69.8 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 * 69.3 0.0 * 0.0 * 67.2 68.8 69.3 68.2 68.1 68.8 67.9 66.0 67.4 -8- 30 26 30 30 29 29 26 15 65.3 56.9 58.0 59.6 56.8 56.6 50.1 69.4 COMMERCIAl. Class A TABLE 6 MEAS~ AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS _April - June 1996 Departure Noise Monitor Station dB SENEL Carrier AC T'~.~.__D~* RMS-1 RMS-2 RMS-3 RMS-21 RMS-22 RMS-24 RMS-6 Alaska B7374 354 Average 95.1 94.1 92.2 87.0 86.2 87.9 84.0 Count (353) 051) 051) 010) 005) 006) 049) MI)g0 5 Average 100.0 98.6 97.8 90.8 90.4 93.6 90.1 Coum (5) (5) (5) (5) ( 5)- (5) (4) American B757 337 Average 92.5 92_3 90.8 85.4 85.9 86.9 82.7 Coum 035) 027) 034) (29O) (277) (286) 002) MDg0 46 Average 99.5 99 ~ 97.9 91.6 91.3 92.9 893 Coum (46) (42) (46) (37) (40) (42) (44) America West A320 143 Average 92.3 92.0 90.5 84.2 85.5 86.0 82.7 Count (142) (138) (141) (127) (117) (I 18) (125) B7373 7 Avo-age 92.5 92.2 89.2 82.6. 84.9 87.5 81.2 Count (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (5) Continental B7373 340 Average 94.8 93.9 93.2 86.7 873 87.6 83.1 Count (337) (322) (337) (304) (296) (290) (319) B757 84 Average 95.8 95.8 92.7 86.9 87.9 88.5 84.5 Count (82) (83) (84) (72) (67) (73) (83) Delta B7373 88 A~ 95.4 94.1 93.2 86.7 87.4 88.2 84.4 (88) (86) (88) (78) (76) (73) (85) B757 88 Average 95.5 94.1 93.5 85.6 86.0 87.2 82.4 - C. oura (88) (86) (88) (78) (75) (77) (87) IviDg0 ' 89 Average 91.5 90.2 89.1 80.5 82.6 87.5 81.4 Cotmt (88) (85) (89) (64) (71) (78) (63) FedEx A310 63 Average 96.8 96.2 95.6 90.4 903 91.4 87.5 coum (63) (61) (63) (59) (61) (57) (63) . 'Northwest 3,.320 418 Average 94.8 93.8 92.6 86.2 87.9 87.5 83.0 Coum . (416) (410) (415) (369) (364) . (358) 085) Reno MDB0 508 Average 96.6 96.5 95.9 90.3 90.5 91.9 88.2 Count (501) (500) (503) (437) (434) (436) (501) Southwest B7373 179 Average 93.2 93.1 89.7 84.6 - 863 86.6 81.6 Count (176) (176) (178) (161) (155) (151) (161) TWA MDg0 222 Average 98.8 97.8 96.5 89.4 g8.g 92.6 89.8 Count (222) (218) (221) (183) (194) (192) (218) United B7373 156 Average 92.9 92.7 91.1 86.2 87.0 86.6 82.4 Couut (156) (154) ' (154) (144) (135) (130) (140) B757 25 Average 93.5 92.7 92.8 83.8 86.0 87.4 83.5 · Cca~ (24) (25) (24) (20) (22) (24) (25) UPS B757 64 Average 92.7 92.7 90.9 85.2 85.9 87.2 82.7 Count (64) (64) (64) (62) (63) (58) (63) USAir B7373 91 Average 97.2 96.2 95.9 90J3 90.2 91.2 90.2 Count (89) (87) (90) (78) (79) (73) (90) B757 85 Average 96.7 96.0 85.2 87.1 88.3 88.2 Count (84) (85) (85) (77) (70) (73) (79) iV Deps equals the number ofaircrafl departure operation SENEL values measured at one or more departure noise monitor stations. Not every departure RG.'jw K9500 10/9/96 -9- COMMERCIAL TABLE 7 MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS April - June 1996 Departure Noise Monitor Station Class AA' dB SEN~.T. Cattier AC Type # Deps* RMS-1 RMS-2 RMS-3 RMS-21 RMS-22 RMS-24 RMS-6 Alaska B7374 193 Average 93.0 92.5 90.2 85.3 85.0 86.4 82.5 Count '(193) . (187) (191) (168) (170) (167) (185) B757 755 Aw.ag~ 90.4 90.4 89.6 84.5 85.0 85.9 82.2 Cx~nt (744) (738) (748) (644) (636) (635) (581) 886 Average 90.9 90.9 89. I 84.4 84.9 86.1 82.0 Count (882) (864) (882) (790) (783) (756) (80g) B757 80 Average 92.0 '92.4 89.2 83.2 85.0 84.1 80.6 Count (79) (80) (80) (69) (60) (64) (30) B757 88 Average 90.9 91.3 89.0 84.1 84.8 84.5 79.7 Count (88) (85) (87) (77) (81) (76) (63) MI)90 267 Average 89.0 88.7 87.5 80.4 80.1 8325 80.8 Count (2C~) (259) (259) (206) (232) (228) (138) 87 An~l'age 85.5 85.9 84.8 79.0 80.7 80.3 80.5 Count (87) (83) (84) ( 51) (77) (72) (6) 179 Area'age 91.6 91. g 89.1 84.3 84.9 85.1 81.0 Count (178) (175) (178) (161) (158) (153) 047) 3.320 249 Average 90.5 90.3 89.9 83.9 85.5 86.5 83.4 Count (245) (240) (247) (217) (225) (222) (245) B7373 2 Av~ra.ge 93.2 93.0 92.5 87.9 88.1 88.1 83.5 Count (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (l) B757 171 Av~age 92.4 91.6 90.5 84.3 83.9 86.0 83 ~0 Coma 07D 069) (171) (150) 046) -048) (1489 America Wear B7373 Southwest MDg0 B7373 COMMERCIAL Departure Noise Monitor Station Class E dB SENEI. Carricx AC Type # Dogs* RMS-I RMS-2 RMS-3 RMS-21 RMS-22 RMS-24 RMS-6 Alaska B7374 571 Average 90.2 90.5 88.5 85.0 84.4 85.3 81.5 Count (570) (557) (564) (525) (504) (487) (527) America West B7373 982 Average 90.2 90. I 88.3 83.6 84.4 85.3 81.1 Count (977) (955) (975) (881) (883) (854) (817) Rcao lvIDg0 529 Average 87.3 87.3 85.9 78.7 80.8 81.7 79.4 Count. (527) (512) (518) (379) (455) (445) (4~7) Southwest B7373 882 Average' 90.5 90.7 88.1 83.8 84.5 84.6 81. I Count (878) (870) (873) (797) (802) (766) (73g) United, A320 54 Average 89.0 89.1 88.0 82.9 84.4 84.5 81.0 Count (54) (54) (54) (53) (54) (48) (47) B757 '841 Aver-age 89.8 89.8 88.2 82.5 83.4 84.4 81.4 Count (837) (822) (835) (752) (720) (724) (668) # Deps equals the number of aircraft departure operation SENEL values measured at one ormore departure noise monitor stations. Not every departure is measured at ~very monitor. RG:jw K9500 I019196 -10- ^ TABLE 8 MEAS~ AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS April - June 1996 COMMUTER Class E Departure Noise Monitor Station dB SENgi_. Carrier AC Type # Deps* RMS- 1 RMS-2 RMS-3 RMS-6 Skywest E120 51 Average 81.1 82.4 83.0 89.8 ('Delta Connect) Count (49) (42) (36) (5) CL60 111 Average 85.3 83.6 86.0 93.4 Count (1Il) (105) (109) (2) West Air BA31 23 Average 83.9 85.6 - 83.8 81.9 (United Express) Count (15) (8) (11) · (3) Wings West BA31 22 Average 83.2 83.0 82.5 80.4 (American Eagle) ~' Count (18) (13) (14) (1) Great Lakes BE02 I Average 79.4 82.0 81.7 Count (1) (1) (1) GENERAL AVIATION Departure Noise Monitor Station d~ SENFI. # Deps* RMS- 1 RMS-2 RMS-3 RMS-6 Pti{rate Jets 1201 Average 91.3 90.6 92.1 92.3 Count (1195) (1130) (1160) (383) # Deps equals the number of aircraft departure operation SENEL values measured at one or more departure noise monitor stations. Not every departure is measured at every monitor. RG:jw K9500 10/9/96 -11- c~ ..qo o,,.~ NOISE ABATEMt;NT COM3~II'I"I'EE MEETING DATE TIME: PLACE: April 18, 1996 2:00 p.m. Terminal Conference Room #1 CONTINUING BUSINESS . Passenger Lev¢l~ for the 1995-96 Plan Year. There were 7,200,277 passengers served during the 1995-96 Plan Year (From April 1, 1995 through March 31, 1996). For the 1996-97 Plan Year, the Board of Supervisors has allocated operational capacity to serve an expected 7.9 million passengers. , MD-90 Operation~ at JWA. In March and October, Delta Ak Lines and Reno Ak sUccessfully qualified the MD-90 aircraft in Class E, the most restrictive of the three commercial carrier noise classes. . Status of the Santa Ana Heights Ac0u~tiea3 Insulation Pro,am (SAIl AIP). The responsibility for leadership of the SAIl ~ has shifted from the County's Environmental Management Agency (EMA) to John~Wayne Airport. Staff from several JWA Divisions will support the program and work toward its successful continued progress. Homeowners within the SAIl AIP eligibility area will be contacted to determine their interest in voluntary participation in the program. The improvement cost for each home continues to be limited by Board of Supervisors' policy to $38,500 or less. Within this cost limit, the acoustical insulation goal for each participating home will continue to be reducing the aircraft indoor noise exposure to 45 dB CNEL or below, with approximately 5 dB of additional attenuation, in the habitable rooms of each unit that are technically and financially feasible to receive this attenuation. . . Planning for Upgrading of the JWA Aircraft Operations and Noise Monitoring SYstem. JWA plans to prepare a request for proposal to be completed later in 1996, seeking to upgrade, update and automate the existing monitoring system. We expect the new system procurement, installation and acceptance will continue into 1998. The new system is planned to serve JWA for a number of years with the ability to receive periodic upgrade improvements. Additional Question~ and Answers: a. Q. Have the aircraft flight patterns been changed? A. No; the arrival and departure patterns have been unchanged at JWA for many years. bo Q. What is the rule for aircraft noise levels produced at the same time as TCAS warnings?. A_ Safety always comes first. Noise levels associated with documented TCAS warnings or alerts will be noted and held under advisement. If these TCAS- associated levels result in noise levels which exceed the Access Plan or General Aviation Noise Ordinance limits,' the Airport Director will consider omiting these particular levels for purposes of regulation or ordinance enforcement. . Next Meeting Tentative Dote. August 8, 1996 at 2 p.m. ' RG:jw 1<9500 10/10/96 -14- JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOIS~- AE~A7 NAME DORIS MAYS RITA JONES RAMEY GONZALEZ JOHN ESCOBEDO JOHN LEYERLE RENEE GILLIAM WHITE AL STEPHENS MARK ESSLINGER RON TIPPETS I 'EMENT COMMITTFE MEFTING Meeting date: May2, 1996 REPRESENTING ' PHONE JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT SANTA ANA HEIGHTS JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT US AIR SOUTHWEST EMA EMA 252 - 5185 956 - 9126 252 - 5185 252 - 5185 252 - 5043 252-6300 252 - 6371 834 - 5049 834-5394 Page 1 10/10/96 11:15 AM 8479.XLS J. J. VAN HOUTEN &: ASSOCIATES, INC. >hn J. Van Houten, P.E. resulting Engineer in Acoustics ,avid L. Wieland 'incipal Consultant 2691 Richter Avenue Suite 108 lrvine, CA ~ ~gl, bO~ 714/476-0932 FAX 714/476-1023 December 19, 1996 Project File: 2306-91 CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Attention: Ms. Rita Westfield Subject: Review of John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report, 1st and 2nd Quarters 1996 References: 1. "Data Evaluation and Aircraft Noise Impact Study for the City ofTustin," J. J. Van Houten and Associates, Inc., January 8, 1990 2. "Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report for the Period: January 1, 1996 through March 31, 1996," John Wayne Airport 3. "Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report for the Period: April 1, 1996 through June 30, 1996," John Wayne Airport Dear Ms. Westfield, 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: 1. Referring to Figures 1 and 2, the average annual CNEL at station M7 will be 56.9 dB for 1996 based upon data for the 1st and 2nd quarters. This is 0.5 dB higher than the average annual CNEL of 56.4 dB for 1995. (NOTE: The noise contours for John Wayne Airport are based on average annual CNEL values measured at each remote monitoring station.) 2. Referring to Figure 2, the number of noise complaints increased significantly in the 2nd quarter of 1996. This does not correspond ATTACltMENT 2 CITY OF TUSTIN Project File 2306-91 with the decrease in average' quarterly CNEL during the first two quarters of 1996. However, it does seem to correspond with the increase in average quarterly number ofjet operations during the same time period. 3. As indicated in Item 1, above, the annual average CNEL measured at station M7 will be about 56.9 dB based on information through the second quarter of 1996. 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 (Reference 1). AIRCRAFT NOISE CONTOURS In 1988, an exterior aircraft noise monitoring effort was conducted throughout the City of Tustin by the John Wayne AirPort Noise Abatement Office and by J. J. Van Houten and Associates, Inc. (Reference 1). Aircra~-generated single event noise exposure levels (SENEL's) were measured at twelve locations in Tustin over a five month period. As a result of this effort, noise contours were developed for John Wayne AirPort as they impact the City of Tustin. Although the shape of the contours does not change (since flight tracks are fixed), the value of the noise contours does change with different levels of operations at the airPort and different mixes of, aircraft. Figure 3 provides the approximate location of the John Wayne Airport noise contours for 1990 based on measurements obtained at monitoring station M7 throughout the year. Referring to the figure, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) ranged from 53 to 59 dB in the City of Tustin, with a CNEL of about 55 dB at station M7. Based on data through the second quarter, the annual average CNEL at station M7 will be 56.9 dB in 1996. The existing and future Phase 2 contours (based on 1996 data) are provided in Figure 4. Referring to the figure, it is estimated that in 1996 the aircraft-generated CNEL will range from 55 to 61 dB. This is well below the City, County, and State criteria of 65 dB for residential areas. USE OF QUIETER AIRCRAFT AT JWA As requested, we have analyzed the correlation between the increasing use of quieter aircraft at JWA and the change in CNEL within the City of Tustin. 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%. 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 aircraf~ that used the airport between the first quarter of 1995 and the second quarter of 1996. Also provided is the measured average quarterly CNEL at monitoring station M7. Table 2 provides the same information, but the values have been normalized to 17,000 j.j. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. cITY OF TUSTIN Project File 2306-91 aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) per quarter. In this way, a correlation can be established between the quarterly CNEL and the mix of aircratt types. Referring to Table 2 and Figure 5, the percentage of quieter Class E aircraft usin~ John Wayne Airport was higher in the 2nd quarter of 1996 than in the 1st quarter (about 38%}'. This increase in Class E aircraft was offset by decrease in the use' of the noisier Class A aircraft. With this decrease in noisier aircraR the weighted average quarterly CNEL has also decreased. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 714/476-0932. Very truly yours, dt:c:Xlotsuit~\wordpmyrojects~2300-24~306rS.sam J.J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. Z 0 CL. 0 Z t-- o~ Z 0 0 I 0 Z ~ . 0 ti~ 0 t~ (BP) 13NO Average Quarterly Aircraft CNEL, M7 80 ~ 40 ~ 20 0 1Qtr95 2Qtr95 3Qtr95 4Qtr95 1Qtr96 2Qtr96 Quarter/Year ! 3Qtr96 25 Total Quartedy Jet Operations, M71 ! 4Qtr96 °~5 5 0 1Qtr95 2Qtr95 *E 80 3Qtr95 4Qtr95 1Qtr96 2Qtr96 Quarter/Year [Average Quartedy Noise. Complain~j 3Qtr96 4Qtr96 c~ 60 ._ o Z >. 40 0 2O < 0 1Qtr95 Figure 2 2Qtr95 3Qtr95 4Qtr95 1Qtr96 2Qtr96 Quarter/Year 3Qtr96 4Qtr96 5~ 53 Figure 3. Approximate Location of jOhn Wayne Airport Noise Contours, 1990 M-7 6 60 59 58 57' t ~.---:~-_ - 56 55 /- Figure 4o Approximate Location of John Wayne Airport Noise Contours, 1996 I I I c) spuesnoql · SNOI/~I:IdO J.:l~f~lO~ll¥ -10 ~I:IBI~iI'IN