Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 3 AIRPORT STATUS 06-21-93AGEND/L._" REPORTS NO. 3 6-21-93 Intor-Com DATE: JUNE 21, 1993 'TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVMLOPMENT DEPARTMENT AIRPORT STATUS REPORT RECOMMENDATION Receive and file. FISCAL IMPACT Monitoring of the various special interest groups concerned with airport issues requires the use of routinely scheduled staff time and is therefore part of the City's normal budgeted expenses. The City retains the consulting firm of J. J. Van Houten and Associates, Inc. for review of noise related items and there is a limitation of one-thousand dollars ($1,000) per review of each JWA Quarterly Noise Report. DISCUSSION Coalition for Responsible Airport Solutions (CRAS) Planning Commissioner Kathy Weil is the representative on behalf of the City for CRAS. A copy of her latest report to the City Council has been attached to this report summarizing the most recent activities of CRAS. Additionally, Commissioner Weil has included a copy of a recent newspaper article concerning the Coalition's video project and a copy of a report prepared by Lt. Col. Bill Kogerman (USMC, Ret.) for CRAS concerning the closure of MCAS, E1 Toro. Oranqe County cities Airport Authority (OCCAA) As directed previously by Council, staff continues to,monitor the activities of the OCCAA. On May 19, 1993, staff attended a general meeting of the Board. The agenda items included a review of the base closure hearing and latest developments regarding MCAS, E1 Toro, a presentation regarding toxic issues related to base closure and a presentation by Attorney James Erickson regarding potential amendments to the OCCAA Joint Powers Agreement. The Board did not take much action on these items other than to affirm the need to revise the Joint Powers Agreement for the OCCAA, most specifically to broaden the spectrum of its members to include a better cross- section representation. This was thought necessary to hopefully City Council Report Airport Status Report June 21, 1993 Page 2 secure the Base Closure and Realignment Commission's favorable recommendation that they lead the re-use planning efforts for MCAS, E1 Toro. It is outside the perview of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission's authority to determine the representative reuse authority when a facility is slated for closure. Staff will continue to monitor the agenda items and attend meetings of the OCCAA as necessary. JWA Noise Abatement Proqram Quarterly Report J.J. Van Houten and Associates, Inc., Tustin's noise consultants, prepared a review of the most recent County-prepared John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Program quarterly report for the 4th quarter of 1992. A Copy of their report is attached. For the fourth quarter'of 1992 there has been an increase in the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) at monitoring station M7 in Tustin of three-tenths (.3) of a decibel. During the same period, the number of aircraft operations has increased, reaching a total of 16,411. However, the average aircraft operations calculated for the year of 15,450 per quarter is below the expected normal aircraft operations total of 17,000. Based on data through the fourth quarter of 1992, the annual average CNEL at station M7 was 56.3 dB in 1992. This is 1.2 dB less than the average annual CNEL of 57.5 dB for 1991. This is below the City, County, and State criteria of 65 dB for residential areas. Additionally, the number of quarterly noise complaints for Tustin/Orange has significantly decreased for this same time period corresponding with the reduction in the average CNEL; however this does not correlate with the increase in flights discussed above. The consultant has again analyzed the relationship between changes in CNEL and the number of quieter aircraft put into service at John Wayne Airport. This analysis shows that the percentage of quiet Class E aircraft has decreased slightly between 1991 and 1992, as did the weighted average noise level. Class E aircraft are the quietest of the three types of aircraft (Class A, AA and E) unique to John Wayne Airport. However, the classification only applies to departures and in some cases, aircraft classified as Class E are actually noisier on arrival than some Class A and AA aircraft. Therefore, the percentage of Class E aircraft does not significantly affect noise levels at Tustin's noise monitoring station. As a result, it is difficult to correlate the types of aircraft flown with the measured CNELo City Council Report Airport Status Report June 21, 1993 Page 3 CONCLUSION Because the issues discussed above are of considerable importance to the City of Tustin, the Community Development Department will continue to monitor airport issues unless otherwise directed by Council. ~e~ E. Bonner Associate Planner Assistant Director of Community Development Attachments: R%4:AB: kd\ai r~sta4, ccr CRAS Status Report/Exhibits - Commissioner Weil Report from J.J. Van Houten and Associates TO: MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL FROM: KATHY WEIL RE: C.R.A.S. (Coalition for a Responsible Airport Solution As most of you know CRAS has been very successful in raising a doubt about the wisdom of closing MCAS El Toro. Dtrectly or indirectly, our people have influenced the Closure Commission and several members of Congress that moving MCAS El Toro to NAS (Naval Air Station) Miramar would be a "Billion Dollar Blunder". CRAS hired one of Orange County's leading PR firms - David Paine AssoCiates - to guide us through this closure mine field. The past membership dollars, which have been accumulating in our treasury, mad a substantial down payment on Paine's services. David and Sara Schantz ( a former aide to Gaddi Vasquez) have done an exeellent job of guiding, organizing and motivating our Directors. Since most of our Board is retired military, access to both El Toro and Miramar has not been as difficult as it might have been for us mere civilians. Bill Kogerman, one of our members, researched the move and wrote a searing report entitled "Closing MCAS El Toro - Good Intentions, Bad Idea" (enclosed for your review). Bill (a retired Marine squadron leader of both fixed wing and rotary aircraft), feels that it would be bad both militarily and fmancially - a very poorly thoughtout plan. Apparently the decision makers have at least listened because Miramar was put on the list shortly after the release of the report. I've enclosed, also, an article about the video tape that CRAS commissioned. With all that's happening - and its happening very rapidly - Ken Delino of Newport Beach is just about foaming at the mouth. He and Clarence Turner have spent a great deal of time in Washington D.C. lately. In a very recent conversation with one of our members who attends his OCCAA meetings, Ken reasoned that El Toro would probably escape this round of closures but that he has just begun to fight. Look ahead two years to have to fight this battle all over again. Apparently he was originally hired by Newport Beach a few years ago to manage the "Orange County International Airport". He is a career airport manager, not a career assistant City Manager. Interesting, eh? One side not~, at our last meeting, the idea of aggressively pushing the idea to expand John Wayne (fight to over-turn the County's passenger cap with Newport Beach) was raised. Fight fire with fire. South County is a sleeping giant, this could happen, so watch out. Our Annual Meeting will be held on June 30, the day before the final list goes to the president. Meeting is to be held in Clubhouse 3, just inside Leisure World Gate 3, offMoulton Parkway just south of El Toro. It should be an interesting ga&ering. O.C. Register Saturday, May 1, 1993 ME, TRO Page 13 Opponents of El Toro base closure make a video to prove their point MILITARY: The 30- minute taPe will be shmvn to members of the federal base- closure commission. By MARY ANN MILBOURN The Orange County Register Assemblyman Tom Umberg launched into what has now be- come a familiar litany nf questions for thuse opposiog the closure of El Tore Marine C~*ps Air Station. Will it ,,;ave 'taxpayer dollars? What is the military significance? "Walt a minute." Umberg said after stumhliag over the militaD'- significance phrase. "Can ! tD' it again?" Welcnme tu the taping Friday bi' "The Closing of El Toro"-- the movie. Umberg, D-Garden Grove. x~as acting as the moderatoc -- or the Phil Donahue, as some joked -- of a video ronndtable discussion be- ing taped by base-closure oppo- nents. The $8,500 video, sponsored by the south Orange County-based Coalition for a Responsible .Mrport SoiuUon. is the latest effort to get the message across to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission that El Toro sh~Jldn't be shut down. Coalition members testified in San Diego on Tuesday bef¢~'e three members of the commission, but thne constraints prevented them from saying all they xx-a. nted. Five other members weren't pPesent tu hear their pitch. The base-closure opponenL'~ hope the 30-minute vide~ ~ll set El Toro apart and give them a chance to drive their message home individually to each conmais- sioner. Umberg and alne other partici- pants spent more than two hours Friday discussing the El Toro clo- sure proposal, using a variety of facL~, figures, charts and personal stories to illustrate their points. The taping was divided into two segments. The first half focused on the costs and r~lilary appropriate- ness of the mo~e. Unlike at the hearing Tuesday, opponents were able to include nex~~ figures from the Pentagon showing that the move could cost nearly $1 billion more than ~ginally prelected. The video xvill be distributed to the eight commissioners .,md the members of Congress who will vote on the closure list. CLOSING MCAS EL TORO GOOD INTENTIONS, BAD IDEA by Lt. Col. Bill Kogerman (USMC, Ret.) We've all differed at one time or another with decisions made by leaders of organizations held near and dear. Most of the time, we simply accept the wisdom of the chosen few and press on with our lives. However, sometimes such differences just can't be allowed to go u.nchallenged. The decision to recommend placement of the Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro on the base closure list is one of those cases where the 'interest of the country outweighs any service protocol loyalties -- and cleady deserves to be challenged. For those who are on the periphery of this crucial closure proposal, a little background information is most appropriate. On February 22, 1993, Attachment I-3 to the "Department of the Navy Analysis and Recommendations to the DOD Base Closure and Realignment Report" was signed by no less than six flag rank Naval and Madne Corps officers. In this document, which precipitated the March, 1993 announcement of the proposed closing of MCAS El Toro, certain assumptions were made which lead to the development of the official justification for the closure. The logical construct upon which the closing of MCAS El Toro was founded requires that base facilities at NAS Miramar provide the physical, financial, environmental, and operational benefits and wherewithal to resolve the fixed and rotary wing requirements of the Third Marine Aircraft Wing. Also inherent in that premise is the requirement that the NAS Miramar Naval assets can be effectively relocated to other bases; that there would be no reduction in the combat readiness of any of the forces; and, that there would be a financial reward stemming from Closing MCAS El Toro Page 2 of 11 the "consolidation" resultant. It was assumed by the Committee staffers that a total of 121 F-18 aircraft would require relocation from MCAS El Toro and MCAS Kaneohe Bay due to the total base realignment package. Furthermore, it was assumed that 48 CH-46 medium lift and 68 CH-53 heavy lift helicopters from MCAS Tustin would be relocated' along with the F-18 fighter/attack aircraft to NAS Miramar. It was assumed that in addition to the foregoing aircraft and operational units, 12 KC-130 tanker aircraft would also be "accommodated by existing facilities and operations at NAS Miramar". It was estimated that no major environmental impacts would result" ... however, some minor military construction may be required" (emphasis added). It was also assumed that the remaining 24 CH-46 helicopters would be relocated at Camp Pendteton, a move that would require new military construction, primarily for helicopter hangars and parking. It was assumed that the proposed realignment would not have significant environmental impacts and that the addition of the helicopter assets at Miramar would not expand the noise contours currently in place at NAS Miramar. In a continuing litany of assumptions, · it was offered that the relocated helicopters would have dedicated flight corridors to ingress/egress the airfield and that Iow level egress departures would be available to the helicopter air crews. I provide the reader with the foregoing committee assumptions since it is against these very assumptions that I present my case. I personally toured NAS Miramar on April 12, 1993, along with one of my fellow Coalition for a Responsible Airport Solution (CRA$) directors, Colonel Sherwood Heiser, USAF (Ret.). We met with key facilities Officers, planners, and air operations personnel. We wanted to know firsthand whether the questionable co-location of Marine fixed and rotary wing aircraft at NAS Miramar, Closing MCAS El Toro Page 3 of 11 envisioned by the Base Structure Evaluation Committee made any real sense. Rumors were running rampant that this relocation scheme had serious flaws, sky-rocketing costs, and projected operational degradation in combat readiness as a result of a host of physical, environmental, and geographic concerns. Since the compatibility Of NAS Miramar to receive, accommodate, and provide an enhanced operational benefit -- justifying the closure of MCAS El Toro and the canceling of the approved construction of an air station at 29 Palms -- was at the crux of the recommendation, we felt that it was imperative to talk with the those personnel at NAS Miramar charged with the bases' upkeep and operational functioning. We addressed certain basic questions to our hosts. Could NAS Miramar support the proposed force structure and, if not, what measures would be required? Were there any major constraints to developing the relocation plan? Did the benefits of such a plan justify the Costs, upheaval, and realignment effort? It was reasoned that since the co- location of fixed and rotary wing aircraft at NAS Miramar was essential to justify the closure of MCAS El Toro, that any constraining factor which diminished combat readiness as a result of such co-location would render the decision to close MCAS El Toro to be insupportable. Here's what we saw and what we were told. Currently, there ,are insufficient facilities to house and maintain both the fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. It is assumed that no rational operational commander would optionally choose to intermingle such assets on the same parking ramp for fear of the degraded safety and potential increased maintenance requirements caused by foreign objects whipped up by the vortex of rapidly rotating helicopter blades. Planners are faced with maintaining the fixed wing aircraft in Closing MCAS El Toro Page 4 of 1 1 the six available hangars, and providing newly constructed facilities for the helicopter assets. The required new construction would necessitate, amongst other items, the construction of 2 to 3 new hangars and ramp space for 116 medium and heavy helicopters. Needless to say, this construction effort would also necessitate requisite support facilities including an appropriate fuel supply source. This construction, which was assumed to be "minor" by the Base Structure Evaluation Committee, takes on major proportions in terms of costs and limited site selection. Two construction sites were identified as "potentially feasible" -- the eastern end of the existing ramp and the south side of the airfield. East ramp construction would probably be limited to a single hangar which would still present a close and undesirable parking ramp interface between the fixed wing aircraft and the helicopters. South side construction would be met with an environmentally sensitive wet lands and habitat immediately adjacent to this construction site, potentially complicating or completely thwarting any such construction plans. Even if we assume that the appropriate helicopter facilities could be completed (an · assumpti~)n our NAS Miramar host considered remote) it was still determined that NAS Miramar would most probably not "accommodate" both fixed and rotary wing aircraft as proposed by the Base Structure Evaluation Committee due to a myriad of other operational and facilities related issues. Colonel Heiser and I were introduced to an antiquated above-ground steam heating system which was identified as the . . . most inefficient and costly utilities system around..." The wooden structural capital improvements, for the most part, displayed a weathered obsolescence consistent with an extremely low annual maintenance budget. Some enlisted barracks were throwbacks to the "open bays" of yesteryear. Most of the Closing MCAS El Toro Page 5 of 11 wooden support structures were in a Iow state of repair, with numerous heating and utility repairs required. The fuel farm tanks displayed their rusty exteriors. Roads were in need of crater repair and top slurry. We were told that the engine shop~ and hush houses most probably would require complete dismantling and replacement to accommodate the Marines F-18. The F-14 simulator building would probably not be suitable for a retrofit for the F-18 simulator because of its unique construction and the utilities package inherent therein. Perhaps as critical as the condition of the on-base enlisted billeting facilities is the overall shortage of housing at Miramar. With approximately 300 base housing units available and an additional 180 units budgeted for construction in the summer of 1993, NAS Miramar will present the Marines with the problem of providing for almost 3,000 families who will have to vacate MOAS El Toro and MCAS Tustin housing and take their chances in San Diego County. The NAS Miramar personnel told me that nearby housing was not readily available in sufficient quantities - and where it was available, the incoming enlisted personnel would could expected to pay between $150.00 and $200.00 · per month above any allowance provided by the government for off-base quarters. In essence, the young enlisted Marines from MCAS El Toro slated to move to Miramar would be asked to partially finance this base closure scheme out of their regular pay. This is certainly not reflective of how the Marine Corps provided for the welfare of junior Marines during my active career. Colonel Heiser and I were shown the environmentally sensitive wetlands and habitats. We were introduced to the land fill leased by the City of San Diego and the Closing MCAS El Toro Page 6 of 11 Stone Quarry -- all within the NAS Miramar fence line. After careful examination of the NAS Miramar general plan documents, our fears of a "shrinking base" were confirmed. While the 23,000 (+) acres contained within the NAS Miramar sphere seems overwhelming when compared to the 4,700 (+) acres at MCAS El Toro, when these two facilities are specifically compared for "further development", NAS Miramar shrinks to approximately 2,600 acres vis a vis approximately 3,600 acres at MCAS El Toro. NAS Miramar, by its own documentation, is a huge environmentally sensitive land space with a severely limited expansion or developable capability. In this air base shell game, it's a case of" ... now you see it, now you don't". For the U. S. Marine forces that would be asked to maintain and operate almost 260 fixed and rotary wing aircraft at NAS Miramar, the illusion of a large facility that solves the 3rd MAW helicopter relocation problem will slip through their fingers as quickly as a handful of Pensacola Beach sand. We continued to look for the -pony- in this proposal. We were given a thorough tour of the airfield operations center complete with air controller briefings on air operations matters~ These air operations professionals advised us that, in spite the Committee' assumption to the contrary, NAS Miramar does not have authorized Visual Flight Rule (VFR) military departures forthe high intensity helicopter training and operational missions and that the establishment of such routes would require an environmental impact study (ELS) replete with acceptance by the local community. Western departures along the Seawolf corridor at Iow altitude by helicopters, despite the Navy's ownership of encroachment dghts, would be severely contested by the local citizenry. Eastern departures for helicopters would not be permitted by FAA regulation as long as aircraft arrivals to runway 24 were in progress. The declaration of "Special VFR Rules" condition Closing MCAS El Toro Page 7 of 11 by the airfield operations control has the negative effect of shutting down VFR operations at..the three locally adjacent civilian airfields and would not be tolerated for extended periods of time. The local air control and facilities personal assured us that combined fixed wing and rotary wing Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations would cause unacceptable delays in departure and arrivals. While there was a sense of greater flexibility in handling such a mix of dissimilar pedorming aircraft by the Civilian Air Controllers (FAA), even they admitted that significant delays in airfield departures and arrivals would be evident. So now what? MCAS El Toro was justified to be on the closure list because it was deemed to have "... the lowest military value (of any jet base in the Pacific Fleet) ·.. no expansion possibilities; is the subject of serious encroachment.., and the base realignment scenario obtains an immediate return on investment" (emphasis added). I'd like to know to whom the Committee staff personnel talked. MCAS El Toro does not have a serious encroachment problem and I can assure the Committee that no · immediate return on investment should be anticipated with their realignment scheme. In fact, there is a serious question whether there will ever be any actual savings with the proposed realignment. Active duty military planners tasked with understanding the projected costs involved with this proposed move were fully activated no earlier than the beginning of April, 1993 (April Fools Day). In fact, the NAS Miramar personnel said Col. Heiser and I represented the first of any group to look at the operational flight issues in this matter. The April 30, 1993 Los Angeles Times reported that the West Coast Marine planners estimate that the Committee erred by almost one billion dollars (that's BILLION, Closing MCAS El Toro Page 8 of 11 folks!)!! There is ample evidence to indicate that the local operational Marine Commanders were blind-sided by the proposed closure decision. There is absolutely no evidence that the opinions of the local field commanders were sought nor received, indeed, the "justification statement" in the cited reference reads as though it was prepared after the decision to close MCAS El Tore was directed and not as culmination of the research process. An analysis of the proposed realignment proposal as a result of our visit to NAS Miramar may be summarized as follows: 1. NAS Miramar cannot physically accommodate the proposed realignment without a major constrUction effort. 2. Environmental constraints will most probably restrict the required new co nstrUction. The costs of the proposed realignment are grossly understated. (Approaching $1.3 billion as compared to the Committee's estimate of $340 million). Environmental and procedural constraints will severely limit helicopter operations. Training, safety, and operational combat readiness of the Third Marine Aircraft Wing will be degraded. Civilian encroachment to the north, west, and south of NAS Miramar more severely impacts NAS Miramar than similar factors effect MCAS El Toro, and this issue will be compounded by the arrival of helicopters. Closing MCAS El Toro Page 9 of 11 7. The preponderance of the acreage under NAS Miramar control, east of the I-5 Freeway, is essentially unusable for any purpose other than as a vacant approach corridor to runway 24 and the remaining acreage shrinks to approximately 2,600 usable/developable acres. 8. Authorized military ingress/egress helicopter routes are not currently available and may not be approved if requested. 9. The Navy's Base Structure Evaluation Committee grossly overstates the negative aspects of maintaining MCAS El Toro as an operational air base. 10. It is inconceivable that the Navy's Base Structure Evaluation Committee reached the conclusion that MCAS El Toro -- as a modern jet facility with a flexible operations environment and updated infrastructure -- was the sole . jet base serving the Pacific Fleet with the lowest military value. 11, NAS Miramar, with approximately 2/3 of its vast acreage rendered undevelopable, is an aging facility with definable functional obsolescence in many of its capital improvements. 12. The entire network of support facilities, housing, and infrastructure directed toward the welfare of the Madnes, Sailors, and civilian employees at MCAS El Toro would be abandoned by the U. S. Marine Corps and exchanged for inadequate assets of questionable state of repair -- notwithstanding the single advantage of acquiring one of the largest Naval Exchanges and Defense Commissaries. 13. No knowledgeable active duty nor civilian personnel from NAS Miramar or MCAS El Toro, with whom I have spoken -- (not a single one) -- has Closing MCAS El Toro Page 10of 11 uttered one word of support for this plan. So I ask you -- why in the wodd is the proposal still being considered? I haven't the slightest idea -- unless one of the U. $. Marine Corps' goals is to own one of the largest Naval Exchanges and Defense Commissaries, I found no redeeming value in the closure scheme. The Madne aviation assets don't fit; the new construction costs are expected to be excessive; and the operational readiness of the flying forces can be expected to decline. The retention of the enlisted Madnes should be expected to suffer as their standard of living decreases, and there is no legitimate expectation for any foreseeable savings in such a musical chair realignment scheme. Somebody thought it was a good idea based on faulty assumptions and an incorrect conclusion was drawn. As they have for over fifty Yea. rs, our active duty MCAS El Toro Madnes will take their orders and carry them out with skill and imagination. I can only hope that they are not directed to ;make the realignment work at any cost". Moving the 3rd MAW to NAS Miramar serves no good intention since the fixed · wing assbts at MCAS El Toro can operate more effectively, efficiently, and less costly Where they are currently based. If the decision to close MCAS Tustin cannot be rescinded, then the most appropriate use of the shelved 29 Palms Mi!Con dollars to solve the 3rd MAW helicopter relocation problem would better be used developing a modern helicopter facility at Camp Pendleton. Let's do what Marine aviation commanders have been saying for years -- put the medium and heavy lift assets where they belong -- in close proximity to the ground forces they support. I would recommend either delaying the closure of MCAS Tustin, or relocating these rotary wing assets to MCAS El Toro and March AFB until such permanent facilities at Camp Pendleton can be completed. If you Closing MCAS El Toro Page 11 of 11 think I've made too much of an issue of the incomparability of fixed and rotary wing aircraft in close proximity on the same airfield, ask the Air Force how they feel abou~ Madne helicopters being collocated with Air Force transports at March AFB. Their answer should put the Base Realignment Committee's closure proposal in proper perspective. Every taxpayer must stand firm in the resolve to prevent this faulty decision to reaching gestation. I enjoin each of you to take up the banner and do what ever you can to prevent this waste of our tax dollars. Wdte your elected representatives and the commission on realignment demanding a better decision. AUTHOR: Lt. Col. Bill Kogerman is a retired Marine aviator. He has an extensive background in both fixed wing jet aircraft as well as helicopters. He has served as a squadron commander and Air Combat Element Commander directing the operations of a wide variety of aircraft in combat and military exercises. A graduate of Chapman University and the U. S. Marine Corps Command and Staff College, Bill serves on the Coalition for Responsible Airport Solution (CRAS) Board of Directors and the City of 'Laguna Hills Planning Committee. j.j. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. JOHN J. VAN HOUTEN, PF~ Principal Consultant DAVID L ~*Vl ELAN D, principal Engineer ROBERT WOO, Senior Engineer STUART TA~ Associate Engineer May 19, 1993 1260 EAST KATELLA AVENUE. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805 [714! 978-7018 [714~ 63~20 FAX [714) 939-0~8 Project File 2306-91 CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department 15222 Del Arno Avenue Tusti~ CA 92680 Attention: Ms. Rita Westfield Subject: Review of John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report, 4th Quarter 1992 Reference: 1. "Data Evaluation and Aircraft Noise Impact Study for the City of Tustin," J. J. Van Houten and Associates, Inc., January 8, 1990 "Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report for the Period: October 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992," John Wayne Airport Dear Ms. Westfield: As requested, we have reviewed the referenced quarterly report 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 general trend from 1991 through 1992 was a decrease in aircraft-generated CNEL at remote monitoring station M7. Based upon data for the 1st through 4th quarters, the average annual CNEL at station M7 was 56.3 dB for 1992. This is a 1.2 dB decrease over the average annual CNEL of 57.5 dB for 1991. (NOTE: The noise contours for John Wayne Airport are based on average annual CNEL values measured at each remote monitoring station.) Referring to Figure 2, there does not appear to be any correlation between the average number of noise complaints received from the Tustin/Orange area and the average quarterly aircraft CNEL or the quarterly number of jet operations. From the second through the fourth quarter of 1992, the number of complaints dropped significantly even as the number of aircraft operatiom and the average quarterly CNEL increased. Also, as indicated in the figure, the number of noise 1 complaints was noticeably higher in 1992 than in 1991, even though the number of flights and the CNEL had decreased slightly. As indicated in Item 1, above, the annual average CNEL measured at station M7 was 56.3 dB based on information for 1992. 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). Aircraft-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 all four quarters, the annual average CNEL at station M7 was 56.3 dB in 1992. The existing and future Phase 2 contours (based on 1992 data) are provided in Figure 4. Referring to the figure, it is estimated that in 1992 the aircraft-generated CNEL ranged from 54 to 60 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'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 CITY OF TUSTIN 2 Project File 2306-91 J.J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. estimated number of each class of aircraft that used the airport between the first quarter of 1991 and the fourth quarter of 1992. 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 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 5, the percentage of quieter Class E aircraft using John Wayne Airport has actually decreased from 1991 to 1992 (from about 22% to 17%). This decrease in Class E aircraft was offset by an increase in the use of the noisier Class AA aircraft. Although the percentage of noisier aircraft landing at John Wayne Airport increased during 1992, the weighted average quarterly CNEL decreased slightly. This may be attributed to variations in the aircraft landing profiles during the year (e.g., higher altitudes at monitoring station M7 or greater lateral distance from the station) or possibly different landing procedures (e.g., lower power settings). If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 714/978-7018. Very truly yours, J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~~teeen,r iPn'~cou s tics. David L. Wieland -~. Principal Engineer. '"~--~_~ .... 3 CITY OF TUSTIN Project Fil~ 2306-91 J.J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. rr~ Inter-Corn DATE: 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DANA OGDON, SENIOR PLANNER ~ OCCA~ MEETING ATTENDANCE - MAY 19t 1993 I attended the subject meeting on behalf of the City specifically for the circled items listed on the attached Agenda. The following s~mmarizes the discussion on these topics: Review of Base Closure Hearina and latest developments reqardinq USMCAS, E1 Toro - The Board engaged in kittle discussion as Ken Delino, Secretary and Executive Director indicated that all the board could do at this point of the base closure process was sit and wait on the July 1st date for the Base Closure and Realignment Commission's recommendations. ~esentat%onbyJeff Jacobs. Nolte Enaineerinq reqardinq toxic issues of base closJres - Explained that the toxic conditions are similar between the E1 Toro base and the Tustin base, and similar clean-up measures would be undertaken. In his opinion, he stated that there should be no reason that the commercial airport use proposal (should the base close) couldn't be implemented while clean-up is going on. Presentation by Attorney James Erickson reaardin~ potential amendments to Joint Powers A~reement - Mr. Erickson represented that he has vast experience in drafting JPAs and could also assist the Board concerning land use planning issues as he currently serves on the San Juan Capistrano Planning Commission. He informed that Board that a JPA was given the authority to prepare the re-use plan at Norton and that the Base Closure and Realignment Commission will be looking favorably towards a group that represents a broad cross-section of the community surrounding the base. The Board heartily agreed with Mr. Erickson's recommendations to update the 20-year old JPA making it more palatable to other cities and profit and non-profit entities. Closing his discussion with the Boar, in his opinion, he believes that a condition will be placed on the closure of USMCAS, E1 Toro for re-use as some type of airport. The next regularly scheduled meeting is set for the third Wednesday in June. ab:\occaa519.mmo NO][SE ABATEHENT PROGRAH QUARTERLY REPORT For the period: October 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992 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: ~Mi ttermeier Airport Di rector John Wayne Airport, Orange County ~NTRODUCTION This is the BOth Quarterly Report submitted by the County of Orange in accordance with the requirements of the California Airport Noise Standards (California Admlnlstr&tlve Code Title 21, Chapter 2.5, SubChapter 6: Division of Aeronautics Noise Standards). Effective January l, 1986, the criteria for defining "Noise Impact Area" was changed from70 dB to 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Under this criteria, the Airport has a "Noise Impact Area". OPERATIONAL SU~RY Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics has established guidellnes to control the amount of noise generated within residential areas by aircraft operations using the State's airports. Under those guidelines, resldential noise sensitive areas exposed to an average Community Noise Wqulvalent Level (CNEL) of more than 65 dB define the "Noise Impact Area" (as defined in the California State Noise Standards)· John Wayne Airport uses nine permanent remote monitoring stations (AMS) located in Newport Beach, Santa Aha, Tustin and Irvine to measure noise levels, at the followlng locations: MONITOR STATIONS AMS-l: Golf Course, 3100 Irvine Ave., Newport Beach AMS-2: 20152 S.W. Birch St., Santa Aha AMS-3: 2139 Anniversary Lane, Newport Beach AMS-4: 1907 Tradewinds Lane, Newport Beach AMS-S: 2601 Vista del Oro, Newport Beach AMS-6: ll3l Back Bay Drive, Newport Beach AMS-7: 17952 Beneta Way, Tustln P. MS-8: 1300 S. Grand Avenue, Santa Aha AMS-9: 17372 Eastman Street, Irvine Figure I shows the Airport's "Noise Impact Area" (as defined by the California State Noise Standards) for the previous year (January 1, lg92 - December 31, 1992). Oeveloped by Mestre-Greve Associates, Inc., in consultation with John Wayne Airport, CNEL values recorded for the period and current digitized land use information were utilized to calculate acreages and number of residences within the "Noi se Impact Area". EVALUATION OF DEPARTURE PROCEDURES In cooperation with the airlines, airframe manufacturers, FAA, and the community, John Wayne Airport · is conducting a test of nolse abatement departure procedures. The test is necessary in llght of FAA's intention to tare regulatory action to define new national safety standards for noise abatement departure procedures, and to limit the number of such procedures which may be used at alrports across the country. The test began on April 1, lgg2 and is scheduled to end on June 30, lg93. Noise levels generated, during this period will be different, and may be higher, than those prior to April 1, 1992 due to the test procedures. COMI~JNITY NOISE EOUIVALENT LEVELS The monthly and quarterly Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) average values for each monltor station are shown in Table 1. The monthly, quarterly and twelve-month CNEL average values for each monitor station are shown in Table 3, while daily CNEL values are shown in Tables 4 through 6. 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 aircraft are shown in Tables 7 through 9- -1- TABLE 1 M~,,~HLY AND QUARTERLY CNEL AVERAGES October - December 1992 Month RMS-1 RMS-2 RMS-3 RMS-4 RMS-5 RMS-6 RMS-7 RMS-8 RMS-9 October 65.8 65.4 63.7 56.7 53.7 55.0 57.5 48.6 67.2 November 64.9 64.5 63.9 56.6 52.7 55.2 55.2 52.8 65.8 December 65.0 64.5 63.6 57.2 53.5 55.5 56.4 51.5 65.9 Quarter Average 65.3 64.g 63.7 56.8 53.3 55.2 56.6 51.2 66.~ For the twelve month perlod ending December 31, 1992, 51 homes in Newport Beach and Santa Ana Heights were in the "Noise Impacted Area" (65 dB CNEL); this is an increase of 12 homes from the previous twelve month period endlng September 30, 1992. This increase in the Nolse Impact Area and the home count wlthln this area has resulted from the test of noise abatement departure procedures. The State has approved several remedies for property owners in the area: the 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. There have been 124 residences purchased or otherwise made compatible through the County's Purchase Assurance Program, Acoustical Insulation Program or Housing Relocatlon Plan. This number reflects a decrease from the number used in the previous Quarterly Report due to incorrect informatlon which had been recorded for several propertles. On July 16, 1991 the County Board of Supervisors placed a nine month moratorium on the S~nt& Ana Heights Purchase Assurance Program and Acoustical Insulation Program due to uncertainty of pending FAA changes to noise abatement departure procedures. The Board has since extended the moratorium through N&rch 31, 1993. TELEPHONE COMPLAINT CALLS (October - December 1992~ The Airport's Noise Abatement Center investigates noise complaints from local citizens and all other sources. Ourlng the fourth quarter of 1992, the Center received a total of 719 noise complaints from local citizens, a 53.3% decrease from complalnts received during the previous quarter and an increase of 54.5% from complaints received during the same quarter of 1991. Figure 1 shows the local geographic area distribution of the quarterly telephone complaints. FIGURE GUARTERLY TELEPHONE CONPI~INT$ SUblUnaRY S.A. Hei~hts~59 -2- Tust~n/Orange Balboa/Corona del Nar TRAFFIC SUF~ARY The Airport traffic sur~nary for this quarter is shown in Table 2 and Figure 2 below. Air carrier operational count histories and average daily departure counts are illustrated in Tables 10 & ll. TABLE 2 LANBING ANB TAKEOFF OPERATIONS October - December 1~92 3et Propeller Business Total Average Daily Month/Quarter Air Carriers Air Carriers Jet Aircraft Operations 2et Ooeratlons October 5,375 2,614 713 45,143 196 November 5,124 2,408 634 44,771 192 December 5,384 2,471 625 40,640 194 Fourth Quarter 15,883 7,493 1,972 130,554 194 PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS: 01/01/92 - 12/31/92 61,521 27,390 7,280 548,710 388 NOTE: Business jet figures include a 5% factor for operations not reported by the control tower. Counts in this table are based upon records provided by the local FAA representatives. FIGURE 2 ~UARTERLY AIRPORT TIL~FFIC SLIMMARY (LANDING AND TAKEOFF OPERATIONS) OCTOBER*DECEMBER 1992 Jet Carrier~74~]15~3 Prop Carrier Business det~ GA PropeLLer 105206 0 20000 &oo00 60000 80000 100000 l~OOOO NUMBER OF OPERATIONS --3-- BRISTOL STREET SOUTH 55 d~ CiNE~ JANUARY 1992 - DECEMBER 1992 LEGEND: FIGURE 1 Single Family Residen~al: ~' (No, in I:x:~d is no. of D.U.) Incompatible Land Use/Yea: 15.3 acres or 0.022 square miles Number of Dwellings: 51 dwellings units Number of People: 128 (based on 2,5 people per D.U.) MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES MARCH 1993 65 CNEL IMPACT AREA TABLE 3 LONG TERM MEASURED LEVELS Aircraft CNEL from 1/92 throuqh 12/92 RMS NUMBER (dB CNEL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JAN. 1992 63.5 62.1 61.9 55.0 50.8 53.0 55.2 0.0 65.4 # DAYS 30 30 20 30 30 23 30 O 29 FEB. 1992 64.1 63.0 61.8 56.5 0.0 55.2 57.6 53.3 66.8 # DAYS 26 24 18 26 0 24 24 15 26 MAR. 1992 64.7 63.7 63.3 57.0 57.5 57.0 58.3 51.2 68.4 # DAYS 31 24 31 28 21 13 31 21 23 Q-I 1992 64.1 62.9 62.6 56.2 54.8 55.0 57.2 52.2 66.9 # DAYS 87 78 69 84 51 60 85 36 78 APR. 1992 64.9 64.1 63.7 55.1 56.8 54.2 56.9 50.5 67.0 # DAYS 28 27 28 27 23 28 28 27 18 MAY. 1992 64.9 64.4 63.9 54.8 54.1 52.4 55.1 48.8 67.1 # DAYS 31 31 31 26 30 31 31 26 27 JUNE 1992 64.4 63.1 63.4 55.3 52.7 53.8 53.8 45.9 65.2 # DAYS 24 22 24 23 23 22 23 23 12 Q-2 1992 64.4 63.3 63.1 55.5 53.2 55.4 56.8 49.4 66.8 # DAYS 83 80 83 76 76 81 82 76 57 JULY 1992 66.8 66.1 65.9 58.2 55.0 56.7 57.0 49.1 67.1 # DAYS 31 3] 3] 3] 27 3] 30 3] 27 AUG. ]992 66.9 66.0 65.8 57.7 54.5 56.3 55.3 49.7 66.6 # DAYS 3] 30 3] 29 3] 29 28 28 30 SEPT ]992 66.5 65.7 65.8 57.] 53.8 55.2 56.3 50.4 66.7 # DAYS 30 29 30 30 30 30 28 27 30 Q-3 1992 66.7 65.9 65.8 57.7 54.4 56.1 56.3 49.7 66.8 DAYS 92 90 92 90 88 90 86 86 87 OCT. 1992 65.8 65.4 63.7 56.7 53.7 55.0 57.5 48.6 67.2 # DAYS 29 3] 3] 3] 27 29 3] 29 3] NOV. 1992 64.9.. 64.5 63.9 56.6 52.7 55.2 55.2 52.8 65.8 # DAYS 27 27 27 27 26 24 24 27 27 DEC. ]992 65.0 64.5 63.6 57.2 53.5 55.5 56.4 51.5 65.9 # DAYS 23 23 22 23 22 23 23 23 22 Q-4 1992 65.3 64.9 63.7 56.8 53.3 55.2 56.6 51.2 66.4 # DAYS 79 81 80 81 75 76 78 79 80 Q-1 1992 THRU Q-4 1992: TOTAL 65.'4 64.6 64.2 56.6 54.4 55.1 # DAYS 341 329 324 331 290 307 56.4 331 50.4 277 66.7 302 Q-4 1991 THRU Q-3 1992: TOTAL 65.l 64.1 64.1 56.3 53.9 55.3 # DAYS 335 319 283 240 287 315 CHANGE FROM PREVIOiJS 4 QUARTERS 56.4 321 +0.3 +0.5 +0.1 +0.3 +0.5 -0.2 0.0 49.9 238 +0.5 66.7 3O8 0.0 DM:jm 0852n -4- TABLE 4 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION OCTOBER 1992 RMS NUMBER (dB CNEL) Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 65.3 65.2 63.5 54.3 52.2 54.8 55.4 45.8 66.7 2 66.1 65.9 64.6 57.6 54.0 54.8 57.5 49.2 67.6 3 64.5 64.0 62.4 56.5 0.0' 55.3 52.9 46.9 64.5 4 65.4 64.8 64.7 56.5 0.0' 55.1 54.0 50.6 67.5 5 65.7 65.2 63.5 57.3 0.0' 53.9 54.7 50.6 66.9 6 67.1 66.9 64.6 55.6 0.0' 53.7 56.6 44.7 67.1 7 65.9 65.9 63.2 55.5 51.9 52.0 55.5 51.4 67.4 8 65.6 65.2 63.5 55.9 51.9 53.7 57.9 50.2 68.0 9 66.5 66.0 64.8 56.6 53.2 53.9 57.0 51.0 67.3 10 64.2 63.9 61.5 53.7 54.4 56.4 58.7 48.4 64.0 1l 64.9 64.6 63.8 54.8 51.9 53.5 57.4 49.0 67.9 ]2 63.9 63.4 6].9 53.] 49.7 50.7 60.4 51.9 67.0 ]3 65.5 64.8 63.4 56.6 53.3 52.3 60.4 45.6 68.4 ]4 66.2 65.5 64.0 57.7 53.6 55.3 57.5 47.7 67.7 ]5 66.6 66.2 64.4 57.5 53.8 55.3 58.0 46.5 67.4 ]6 67.2 66.5 64.9 58.5 54.8 56.3 57.] 49.2 67.7 17 65.4 65.3 63.0 56.2 53.7 54.4 55.8 44.0 65.3 ]8 66.0 65.8 63.5 56.5 53.2 56.4 57.5 4].5 67.4 ]9 66.4 65.5 64.6 58.0 54.] 54.7 58.3 44.8 67.3 20 65.6 65.2 63.4 56.0 53.7 55.7 58.7 44.5 67.7 2l 0.0' 65.5 63.6 57.2 54.3 54.3 57.8 45.5 67.3 22 0.0' 65.6 63.9 56.6 54.3 55.1 56.9 49.6 67.] 23 66.] 64.8 64.4 58.] 50.3 53.9 55.9 0.0* 67.3 24 64.9 64.0 62.0 57.0 53.2 56.7 55.3 0.0' 65.6 25 65.4 65.2 63.4 56.2 52.5 56.4 55.2 48.4 65.8 26 66.2 65.9 64.3 56.5 54.5 56.] 57.0 54.9 67.4 27 65.7 65.6 63.2 56.2 54.2 0.0* 58.4 47.7 67.7 28 66.6 66.2 64.] 58.] 55.6 55.8 59.0 45.7 68.0 29 65.8 65.9 63.3 57.0 54.] 0.0* 58.6 46.8 68.2 30 66.7 66.7 64.7 57.9 56.4 56.9 60.5 44.7 68.8 3] 65.] 64.9 62.3 56.2 55.3 54.0 52.4 43.0 64.0 D.Pts : 29 En.Avg: 65.8 Mean = 65.7 S.D. = 0.8 MAX. = 67.2 MIN. : 63.9 3] 65.4 65.4 0.8 66.9 63.4 31 63.7 63.6 0.9 64.9 61.5 31 56.7 56.5 1.3 58.5 53.1 27 53.7 53.5 1.5 56.4 49.7 29 55.0 54.7 1.4 56.9 50.7 31 57.5 57.1 2.0 60.5 52.4 29 48.6 47.6 3.0 54.9 41.5 31 67.2 67.0 1.2 68.8 64.0 * Insufficient Data -5- DM:jm 0852n 2/16/93 TABLE 5 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION NOVEMBER 1992 RMS NUMBER (dB CNEL) Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 65.6 65.0 2 65.7 65.4 3 61.5 60.4 4 61.3 61.5 5 65.3 65.6 6 66.4 66.5 7 64.2 64.3 8 66.5 65.6 9 66.3 65.7 10 0.0'* 0.0'* 11 0.0'* 0.0'* 12 0.0'* 0.0'* 13 66.l 66.l 14 64.2 64.3 15 66.1 65.5 ]6 66.4 65.9 17 65.8 65.6 ]8 67.2 66.7 ]9 66.6 66.5 20 61.4 59.4 21 59.4 58.9 22 66.4 65.4 23 66.3 65.9 24 66.7 66.4 25 66.7 66.3 26 53.9 48.5 27 60.0 59.7 28 63.9 63.0 29 57.7 54.7 30 61.1 58.9 63.5 56.4 52.2 54.5 53.5 45.8 66.5 63.7 57.0 54.9 56.0 54.6 43.3 66.6 66.1 57.8 44.4 56.2 0.0' 59.2 60.4 61.4 52.4 48.2 47.7 55.3 54.1 64.9 63.1 56.5 52.3 56.6 54.5 56.2 67.8 63.9 56.7 53.8 56.6 54.5 51.4 66.4 62.2 56.0 51.9 56.4 51.0 47.1 64.2 65.1 58.9 53.7 57.5 56.9 53.8 67.9 64.6 58.4 54.6 56.0 56.6 53.8 67.7 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'* 0.0'* 0.0'* 0.0'* 0.0'* 0.0'* 0.0'* 0.0'* 0.0'* 63.1 56.0 53.9 52.7 52.9 50.0 66.3 62.3 56.1 53.5 55.1 51.1 40.5 63.5 63.8 56.5 51.6 54.7 55.1 58.l 67.5 63.9 57.l 54.4 55.3 55.4 43.2 66.9 63.7 58.1 54.8 55.8 59.0 48.2 67.6 64.6 57.8 55.4 56.] 58.5 45.4 67.8 64.8 57.5 54.8 55.2 56.0 45.8 67.8 65.6 56.0 42.5 55.4 53.3 47.4 63.4 60.2 51.9 50.7 0.0* 52.l 43.4 62.2 63.9 57.3 53.4 55.6 57.8 47.l 67.4 64.8 58.7 54.5 55.7 56.4 47.7 66.] 64.7 58.0 54.3 55.3 0.0* 50.8 67.] 66.2 58.l 53.6 54.3 49.5 55.3 64.0 60.5 49.2 43.6 0.0* 43.4 52.0 57.8 58.6 5].] 45.6 45.5 47.] 50.l 63.0 63.7 56.0 5].0 56.2 57.2 52.4 62.5 65.9 56.] 0.0' 0.0* 0.0* 57.9 60.7 62.0 52.8 46.2 47.8 57.0 55.2 64.0 D Pts = 27 27 En.Avg= 64.9 '64.5 Mean 64.0 .63.2 S.D. -- 3.3 4.2 MAX = 67.2 66.7 MIN : 53.9 ~48.5 27 27 26 24 24 27 27 63.9 56.6 52.7 55.2 55.2 52.8 65.8 63.6 56.1 51.5 54.5 54.1 50.2 65.1 1.8 2.4 3.8 3.0 3.6 '5.0 2.7 66.2 58.9 55.4 57.5 59.0 59.2 67.9 58.6 49.2 42.5 45.5 43.4 40.5 57.8 * Insufficient Data ** Computer System Down (Data Lost) -6- DM:dm 0852n 2/16/93 RMS NUMBER (dB CNEL) TABLE 6 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATICN DECEMBER 1992 Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 64.8 64.4 61.5 53.9 50.2 2 65.4 64.9 63.l 57.8 53.7 3 65.9 65.] 63.5 58.5 53.6 4 64.9 63.6 67.0 59.0 49.2 5 63.4 63.2 6].] 56.3 54.9 6 65.2 64.8 63.] 57.8 52.4 7 0.0'* 0.0'* 0.0'* 0.0'* 0.0'* 8 66.4 65.9 0.0' 58.3 55.0 9 66.4 66.0 64.5 59.0 54.9 10 66.6 66.1 61.9 57.6 55.7 ll 65.8 65.8 62.7 57.7 55.6 12 61.8 61.5 60.7 54.2 53.0 13 58.5 54.4 65.3 55.7 0.0' ]4 61.7 6].7 62.3 55.3 51.0 15 65.6 65.0 63.3 58.6 54.3 ]6 66.2 65.6 63.4 58.7 54.6 ]7 66.2 65.9 63.5 58.7 55.6 18 67.2 66.3 65.0 57.9 54.8 19 60.5 59.3 6].2 53.0 52.4 20 64.6 64.6 62.5 55.9 50.8 2] 66.2 65.8 63.9 57.5 54.7 22 66.3 65.4 63.9 56.8 51.8 23 62.6 60.9 66.6 57.0 46.0 24 63.6 63.l 60.6 53.0 50.] 25 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 26 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 27 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 28 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 29 0.0'**.0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 30 0.0'**' 0-0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 3l 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 0.0'** 50.3 52.8 52.4 65.8 54.0 56.7 52.3 67.8 55.2 56.3 49.l 67.0 54.0 54.] 51,2 64.3 53.1 56.0 51.4 64.5 61.8 59.6 42.5 68.5 0.0'* 0.0'* 0.0'* 0.0'* 56.1 56.0 51.4 66.6 56.2 56.6 54.7 67.1 55.5 63.0 53.3 67.8 56.0 57.7 47.5 0.0' 53.5 52.8 47.8 60.5 58.2 55.4 47.3 59.4 5].7 55.6 52.5 66.3 55.6 54.9 53.3 66.9 55.7 53.9 52.7 65.8 55.8 60.5 48.6 68..4 57.5 54.6 50.6 64.9 50.6 54.7 49.5 62.6 54.] 52.] 50.8' 64.8 55.7 54.8 56.7 66.5 54.6 46.9 44.6 63.8 48.8 52.5 49.] 63.1 50.6 50.] 52.9 64.4 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'** 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'** 0.0'** 0.0'** D.Pts : 23 23 22 23 22 En.Avg= 65.0 64.5 63.6 57.2 53.5 Mean = 64.6 63.9 63.2 56.9 52.9 S.D. : 2.2 2.7 1.7 1.8 2.5 MAX. -- 67.2 ~ 66.3 67.0 59.0 55.7 MIN. = 58.5 54.4 60.6 53.0 46.0 23 23 23 22 55.5 56.4 51.5 65.9 54.6 55.] 50.5 65.3 2.8 3.3 3.2 2.3 6].8 63.0 56.7 68.5 48.8 46.9 42.5 59.4 * Insufficient Data ** Telephone Line Down *** Computer System Down (Data Lost) DM:jm 0852n 2/16/93 -7- ,~,JMMERCIAL Class A TABLE 7 MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS October - December 1992 Departure Noise Monitor Station dB SENEL Carrier AC Type # Debs* RMS-1 RMS-2 RMS-3 RMS-4 RMS-5 RMS-6 Alaska MD80 246 Average 100.6 lO0.O 99.6 90.9 88.3 90.0 Count (243) (244) (243) (243) (232) (240) B7374 27 Average 88.9 89.4 88.1 83.5 83.3 82.8 Count (27) (26) (24) (17) (22) (20) American MD80 394 Average 98.5 98.0 96.7 91.4 87.2 89.5 Count (390) (388) (387) (390) (370) (387) B757 298 Average 96.0 96.4 92.7 83.6 82.0 81.7 Count (293) (295) (290) (249) (95) (268) America Nest B757 28 Average 92.4 93.1 88.4 82.3 80.0 79.5 Count (26) (28) (27) (24) ( 9) (14) B7373 45 Average 94.2 93.8 91.8 84.7 81.0 81.7 Count (45) (45) (45) (44) (23) (41) A320 59 Average 92.5 92.3 90.1 85.2 81.7 82.8 Count (58) (57) (56) (57) (26) (54) Continental MD80 4 Average lOl.l lOl.1 100.5 91.0 91.5 89.0 Count ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) B7373 387 Average 94.3 93.7 91.8 86.5 83.4 83.2 Count (378) (381) (374) (381) (338) (378) ~elta B757 1139 Average 93.4 93.1 90.6 83.5 80.5 79.8 Count (137) (137) (134) (136) (78) (107) B7373 69 Average 93.3 92.7 90.9 85.1 81.6 83.2 Count (68) (69) (66) (69) (51) (69) Northwest A320 MD80 213 Average 94.9 94.0 93.2 86.1 82.3 83.5 Count (210) (210) (208) (209)' (121) (205) 72 Average 95.4 95.6 95.1 89.9 87.2 88.0 Count (71) (72) (72) (72) ( 67)- (72) B757 60 Average 91.l 90.8 88.5 83.3 80.2 80.2 Count (58) (59) (59) (55) (23) (45) # Deps equals the number of one or more departure noise every monitor. aircraft departure monitor stations. operation SENEL values Not every departure is measured at measured at -8- DM:jm 0852n 2/16/93 TABLE 7 (cont.) MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS October - December 1992 COMMERCIAL Class A Departure Noise Monitor Station dB SENEL Carrier AC Type # Dep$* RMS-1 RMS-2 RMS-3 RMS-4 RMS-5 RMS-6 Sierra Pac TWA United B7373 142 Average 96.1 95.4 93.7 84.7 82.2 82.1 Count (140) (141) (141) (141) (127) (137) MD80 145 Average 100.7 99.7 99.2 93.3 89.9 92.3 Count (142) (142) (140) (145) (136) (142) B757 191 Average 93.3 92.6 90.4 83.8 80.6 81.2 Count (187) (188) (185) (185) (94) (170) B7373 1 Average 97.7 95.9 95.5 88.1 84.1 81~.8 Count ( l) ( l) ( l) ( 1) ( 1) ( l) # 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. -9- DM:jm 0852n 2/16/93 C04MERCIAL Class AA Carrier TABLE 8 MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS October - December 1992 Departure Noise Monitor dB SENEL AC Type # Deps* RMS-1 RMS-2 RMS-3 RMS-4 Station RMS-5 RMS-6 Alaska 87374 138 Average 88.8 89.3 87.7 82.4 82.7 80.7 Count (137) (136) (137) (103) (121) (113) American 8757 621 Average 94.0 94.6 90.2 82.7 8].6 80.9 Count (609) (616) (611) (447) (169) (454) America West 87373 611 Average 92.0 92.5 Count (603) (601) 8757 1 Average 88.4 88.5 Count ( l) ( l) Continental 87373 145 Average 92.9 92.9 Count (142) (144) Delta 8757 335 Average 90.4 90.8 Count (330) (330) )rthwest 8757 70 Average 90.3 90.1 Count (69) (68) A320 1 Average 92.9 92.7 Count ( 1) ( l) United 8757 454 Average 90.9 91.0 Count (446) (452) 87373 79 Average 91.3 92.0 Count (77) (77) COMMERCIAL Departure Class E Carrier AC Type' # Deps* RMS-1 RMS-2 87.9 83.2 80.5 80.4 (601) (574) (293) (468) 85.5 81.1 0.0 0.0 ( l) ( 1) ( O) ( O) 90.7 86.0 83.5 82.1 (143) (143) (125) (140) 87.5 82.1 80.7 79.6 (325) (308) (158). (107) 88.6 83.0 81.4 80.1 ( 68) ( 57) ( 23) ( 54) 90.4 83.8 78.6, 81.5 ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) 88.2 82.0 80.6 79.4 (449) (395) (183) (200) 89.7 85.1 83.8 80.5 ( 78) ( 78) ( 65) ( 46) Noise Monitor Station dB SENEL RMS-3 RMS-4 RMS-5 RMS-6 America West 87373 712 Average 92.0 92.5 Count ,(700) (707) United BA146 390 Average 88.3 87.4 Count (385) (384) # Deps equals the number of aircraft departure operation one or more departure noise monitor stations. Not every every monitor. -lO- DM:jm 0852n 2/16/93 87.7 83.1 80.1 80.4 (703) (680) (368) (539) 87.0 80.0 82.7 80.4 (378) (179) ( 14) (2]l) SENEL values measured at departure is measured at TABLE 9 MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS October - December 1992 COMMUTER Class £ Departure Noise Monitor Station dB SENEL AC Carrier Type # Deps* RMS-1 RMS-2 RMS-3 RMS-4 RMS-5 Alpha Air BE02 1 Average 83.1 80.8 83.1 00.0 00.0 Count ( l) ( l) ( 1) ( O) ( O) Wings ~est SF34 30 Average 81.5 84.1 84.0 79.8 77.9 (American Eagle) Count (29) (27) (30) ( 5) ( 2) BA31 52 Average 81.4 81.2 81.5 80.3 0.0 Count (51) (40) (48) ( 2) ( O) SKywest SW4 20 Average 83.7 83.2 82.7 82.5 77.8 (Delta Connect.) Count (20) (16) (20) ( 1) ( 2) El20 36 Average 80.8 80.9 81.1 78.0 79.0 Count (36) (29) (34) ( 2) ( l) StatesWest BE02 44 Average 83.0 81.8 83.1 81.5 78.7 (USAir Express) Count (43) (29) (39) ( 1) ( l) WestAir El20 268 Average 80.4 81.7 81.7 78.8 82.9 (United Express) Count (267) (249) (265) ( 4) ( 6) BA31 lO Average 86.3 85.5 83.4 0.0 78.8 Count (lO) ( 7) (lO) ( O) ( l) RMS-6 00.0 (O) 76.9 (1) 78.3 (l) 83.0 (l) 0.0 (O) 0.0 ( 0 81.0 (2) 0.0 O) GENERAL AVIATION Departure Noise Monitor Station dB SENEL # Deps* RMS-1 RMS-2 RMS-3 RMS-4 RMS-5 RMS-6 Private 2ets 627 Average 91.0 89.8 91.0 86.3 85.0 85.9 Count (614) (605) (611) (Z58) (122) (238) # 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. -ll- DM:jm 0852n 2/16/93 °° DATE: TIME: PLACE: NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING' November 18, 1992 1:30 p.m. Terminal Conference Room #1 Mr. John Leyerle, John Wayne Airport, ("JHA"), Airline Access/Noise Officer called the meeting to order and opened the meeting for discussion. I. Noise DEMO UPdate Ms. Courtney Wiercioch, Manager, Government/Community Relations for JHA gave a general update on the DEMO. Items addressed were: 1. Draft EIR. 2. New Noise Limits. 3. Access Plan Amendments. 4. Flight Tracks. Regarding the Draft EIR, Courtney Hiercibch stated that while data will continue to be received and processed by Mestre Greve Associates through 3/31193, the environmental data for the EIR is being finalized and the Notice of Preparation (N.O.P.) is in process. It is the County's intention to have the EIR completed by 12/92 and public comment time frame commencing soon thereafter. Considering the process of Airport Commission, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors consideration, the County is hoping to conclude the entire process by 4/1/93 to coincide with the Advisory Circular-53 proposed implementation date of 4/1/93. II. New Business 1. 3ohn Leyerle, Airline Access/Noise Officer was introduced. John Leyerle discussed three charter operations that are expected to .operate in November lgg2 to carry professional football teams. He stated the charters will be part of the Carriers' operating capacity. John stated that the Plan Year 93/94 allocation process will begin soon. The Carriers should be thinking about their allocations for the 93/94 Plan Year and getting their "Wish List" together. 4. John discussed the Carrier Waiting List and how they are put on the list. Two Carriers are presently on the list: USAir and Mark Air. 5. Questions of Noise Staff. Cherie and Mike Steiner brought up the issue of GA operations and enforcement. They were concerned about GA operations after the Tower closes (and subsequent hours of curfew) and, primarily, violators of noise level limits going unabated. John Leyerle informed the committee that Noise Abatement staff takes a daily active role in identifying all violators through contact with Coast TRACON and FSOs. Ms. Steiner inquired about any operator fueling during curfew then departing. Noise Abatement Committe~ Meeting November 18, 1992 Page 2 Ms. Marie Yon Zaborn (Martin Aviation) stated that Martin Aviation closes at 9:30 p.m. and no operator can refuel after closing. Cherie Steiner had questions about G.A. Flight Patterns. She stated concern about GA aircraft "flying wherever theywant" and "seem too low". She asked if any studies had been started to tighten up flight patterns at night. Mr. ~on Ross, from the FAA Local Tower, stated that no study was being done at this time. He informed the committee that all aircraft are required to maintain two-way radio communication and that they either fly recommended IFR or VFR magnetic headings for operational separation and safety considerations. Co Ms. Steiner asked if the FAA could look at Flight Tracks to identify off course aircraft? John Ross said the task would be too labor intensive. do Mr. Steiner stated to the committee that, in addition to curfew GA operations, aircraft noise levels seem to be "a lot louder" now and that these "GA operations don't help the situation." Mr. Larry Poole of Delta Airlines stated to the committee that, from the airlines' perspective, things have been actually improvinq over time. He added that in "order for Orange County residents to have access to national markets, and vice-versa", compromise must be and has occurred. He stated that MD-80 aircraft S-10 years back were the ouietest now they are the loudest. He concluded by saying that noise issues at OWA have improved and that, with consideration of all · parties, positive actions are the result. The Noise Office will have a VOICE activated tape recorder installed by early lgg3 that will help to identify GANO violators during curfew times. A kennel owner who lives in Santa Ana Heights stated that helicopter noise is a real problem in his area. He believes Charter G.A. abuse their airport privileges. He stated that, in his opinion, the charters should pay the same fees as commercial carriers. Several citizens wanted to know if the Acoustical Insulation and Purchase Assurance Programs were going to be reinstated. A representative from EMA stated that these programs wil~l be considered for reinstatement by the Board of Supervisors. h. Next Meeting: February 17, 1993 1:30 p.m. Terminal Conference Room #1 DM:Om 0842n-2 2/16/93 NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING November 18, 1992 NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE # Robert Covey Russ Dickey Patricia Harkin Bob Olds Jack Geiger Paul Seifert Doe Erickson Sharon & Greg Stewart Steve Riley Tony Dodero Larry Pool Jori Ross Bill Schaeffer Shawn Arena John Escobedo Ramey Gonzalez John Leyerle · Doris Mays Courtney Wiercioch Marie Von Zabern Diane Coltrane Cherie & Michael Steiner Bud Brown Martin South Bob Wade Shawn Truex America Hest America Hest American Eagle City of Newport Beach Aviation Committee Continental Continental Costa Mesa City Council 470 Shady Drive, Costa Mesa 92627 Costa Mesa, 2073 Santa Aha Ave. County-EMA Daily Pilot Delta Airlines F~ Tower Homeowner JHA JWA iNA JWA Martin Aviation Newport Beach, 93 Seaborough Newport Beach, 389 Seawind North Bluff Bayview Association Riverside Dr. Kennel Owners Group TWA United Airlines 252-6161 252-6161 852-5368 720-9111 252-5857 252-5856 631-0724 722-6429 834-5374 540-1229 252-5911 549-1466 540-7543 252-5185 252-5185 252-5185 252-5043 252-5185 252-5166 263-5800 646-1264 644-2908 546-6448 252-5800 252-5710 JSL:fh 16931 ll/t~/Q? Noise Abatement Committee Meeting November 18, 1992 Page 2 Ms. Marie Von Zaborn (Martin Aviation) stated that Martin Aviation closes at 9:30 p.m. and no operator can refuel after closing. b. Cherie Steiner had questions about G.A. Flight Patterns. She stated concern about GA aircraft "flying wherever they want" and "seem too low". She asked if any studies had been started to tighten up flight patterns at night. Mr. Oon Ross, from the FAA Local Tower, stated that no study was being done at this time. He informed the committee that all aircraft are required to maintain two-way radio communication and that they either fly recommended IFR or VFR magnetic headings for operational separation and safety considerations. c. Ms. Steiner asked if the FAA could look at Flight Tracks to identify off course aircraft? ~ohn Ross said the task would be too labor intensive. de ge Mr. Steiner stated to the committee that, in addition to curfew GA operations, aircraft noise levels seem to be "a lot louder" now and that these "GA operations don't help the situation." Mr. Larry Poole of Delta Airlines stated to the committee that, from the airlines' perspective, things have been actually imDrovinu over time. He added that in "order for Orange County residents to have access to national markets, and vice-versa", compromise must be and has occurred. He stated that MD-80 aircraft 5-10 years back were the quietest now they are the loudest. He concluded by saying that noise issues at 2WA have improved and that, with consideration of all parties, positive actions are the result. The Noise Office will have a VOICE activated tape recorder installed by early lgg3 that will help to identify GANO violators during curfew times. A kennel owner who lives in Santa Aha Heights stated that helicopter noise is a real problem in his area. He believes Charter G.A. abuse their airport privileges. He stated that, in his opinion, the charters should pay the same fees as commercial carriers. Several citizens wanted to know if the Acoustical insulation and Purchase Assurance Programs were going to be reinstated. A representative from EMA stated that these programs will be considered for reinstatement by the Board of Supervisors. h. Next Meeting: February 17, 1993 1:30 p.m. Terminal Conference Room #1 DM:jm 0842n-2 2/16/93 NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING November 18, 1992 NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE # Robert Covey Russ Dickey Patricia HarKin Bob Olds Jack Geiger Paul Seifert Joe EricKson Sharon & Greg Stewart Steve Riley Tony Dodero Larry Pool Jori Ross Bill Schaeffer Shawn Arena John Escobedo Ramey Gonzalez 8ohn Leyerle · Doris Mays Courtney Niercioch Marie Von Zabern Diane Coltrane Cherie & Michael Steiner Bud Brown Martin South Bob Made Shawn Truex America Nest America Nest American Eagle City of Newport Beach Aviation Committee Continental Continental Costa Mesa City Council 470 Shady Drive, Costa Mesa 92627 Costa Mesa, 2073 Santa Ana Ave. County-EMA Daily Pilot Delta Airlines FAA Tower Homeowner JNA JNA JMA JNA 3HA Martin Aviation Newport Beach, 93 Seaborough Newport Beach, 389 Seawind North Bluff Bayview Association Riverside Dr. Kennel Owners Group TNA United Airlines 252-6161 252-6161 852-5368 720-9111 252-5857 252-5856 631-0724 722-6429 834-5374 540-1229 252-59ll 549-1466 540-7543 252-5185 252-5185 252-5185 252-5043 252-5185 252-5166 263-5800 646-1264 644-2908 546-6448 252-5800 252-5710 JSL:fh 16931 ll/lt/Q?