The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOB 1 J.W. AIRPORT RPT 06-05-89 ., " NO. 1 A~*"~ J""~ ~j, ! ~ JJ .~ '"':'~ __~. OLD BUSINESS DATE: ,]IJNE $, 1989 ~ ...--~,---. v~,-- TO: FROM' SUBJECT: tlILLIAIq HUSTON, CITY MANAGER CONPlJNI'rY DEVELOPIqENT DEPARTIqENT AIRPORT STATUS' REPORT' ,JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT (,]WA), AIRPORT SITE COALITION (kSC), COALITION FOR A RESPONSIBLE AIRPORT SOLUTION (CRAS) AND HELICOPTER OVERFLIGHTS TASK FORCE (HOTF) RECOI~IqENDATION Receive and file. DISCUSSION JWA - Staff has transmitted John Van Houten's comments on the Noise Monitoring Study to the County (Attachment I). Staff will-lnform the Council of any response received from the County. - No new information has been received regarding the Phase 2 Access Plan. Staff wi 11 keep the Counci 1 informed as information becomes avai labl e. ASC - At the meeting held on May 20, 1989, the caucus groups evaluated 17 potential sites (see Attachment II). At the end of the session, approximately six sites were recommended for further technical evaluation. Eight sites marked with an asterisk on Attachment II, were*essentiallY eliminated prior to the meeting due to their failure to meet a majority of the evaluating criteria. The following sites received the most recommendations for further evaluation:. MCAS E1 Toro (both joint and commercial use), South Camp Pendleton, Lakeview Mountains, March Air Force Base (commercial use only), Potrero Las Pinas and Cri sti ant tos Canyon. At the June 24th meeting, the caucus groups will evaluate these remaining sites and be asked to reduce their number to a select few (1-4 sites). There is a reasonable possibility, that MCAS E1 Toro will be eliminated at this time, as its airspace quality rating (on a scale of extremely poor, poor, fair, good and excellent) is only fair. Staff will report back to the Council on the results of the next ASC meeting in our July 3rd status report. J City Council Report JWA Status June 5, 1989 Page two CRAS - At the May 22nd Board meeting, the Board of Directors discussed Mayor Kennedy's letter requesting voting status for a Tustin representative. It was generally agreed that one of the Leisure World Board members would step down, allowing a Tustin representative to be appointed. At this time, it would be appropriate for the Council to discuss selecting either one of its members or a resident of the City to serve on the Board. The Board has requested that the Ctty of Tustln support any resolution recommended to the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities, opposing Assembly Bills 1471 anU [830. The latest information on the status of these bill are' °. AB 1471 was killed in ~he Transportation Committee, however reconsidera.t.ion was granted, allowing the sponsor to amend the bill or lobby for reconst deratt on. ° AB 1830 was passed by the Transportation Committee and will go to the Assembly floor for its third reading, and debate; no date has been set. · . Additional business discussed on May 22nd included fund raising efforts, the preparaion of the video of the slide presentation for cable broadcast and the potential addition of the cities of San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano. The next Board meeting will be held on June 26, 1989, unless an emergency meeting is called in regards to AB 1471 and 1830. HOTF - At the May 24th meeting, the task force inquired if the City of Tustin would support its efforts to encourage the FAA to raise the maximum altitudes at which Marine Corps helicopters could operate within their corridors, both in Tustin and Irvine. There are presently three helicopter routes that pass over and through Tustin:' the Browining Corridor, the Tustin Route and the Mile Square route. The Browning Corridor is the most heavily used route, experiencing ~ 1000 flights per month. The Tustin route follows the 55 freeway south to aproximately Warner an.d 'then east to MCAS Tustin. The Tustin route. experiences approximately seven flights per month. The Mile Square route follows Dyer Road west to Harbor Boulevard and onward and experiences approxim.ately 25 flights per month. According to the Marine Corps, all of these routes are flown at an elevation of 1,000 to 2,400 feet above sea level. Community Development Department Ctty Council Report . JWA Status June 5, 1989 Page three Because of the ILS and LDA approach patterns to JWA,-it is not likely that the FAA would raise the maximum operating altitudes in any of the three corridors that transverse Tustin. staff would therefore, not__support the request due _to the potential air safety issue of exposing additional aircraft to controlled airspace which is already overcrowded, regardless of altitude. The noise consultant hired toI study the Irvine, Reservoir and Reef routes has completed the data gathering and performed noise sampling for the Irvine route. Based upon their initial results, the noise exposure levels are not significant enough to warrant .~ontinuing the study of the Irvine route. These results essentially negate the justification for implementing the Reservlor route. The task force will review the consultant's technical report on the Irvine route and make a formal recommendation at the next meeting (July 26, '1989) as to whether continued study and/or implementation of the Reservior route is warranted. Steve Rubl n Senior Planner SR-pef Attachments': Attachments I and II' Christine Shingleton' ~ Director of Community Development Community Development Dep~prtment City of' Tustin Community Development Department May 19, 1989 Mr. Seorge Rebel I a A1 rport Manager John Wayne Atrport 315! Atr~ay Avenue But1 dtng K-101 Costa Mesa, California 92626 SUBJECT: J#A AIRCRAFT ARRIVAL NOISE LEVEL STUDY . ear Mr. Rebella: · o The Ctty.has completed its tntttal review.of the above noted report. This revtew tnvolved ~ comparison of the report wtth the referenced test plan prepared by the County; enclosure i provtdesJthe re~ul..ts .... of this comparison. Referringt~ the enclosure, there are a number of inconsistencies between the report and the test plan. In view of these Inconsistencies, the Clty of Tustin respectfully requests the following: ~, le That'the Noise Abatement Office respond tn wrtt~ng and addresses the Inconsistencies Identified ~n £nclosure 1; 2. That the County provide the City wtth the existing, and future operational profiles for JWA (number of'daytime: evening and. nighttime arrivals) by aircraft type and air carriers;, and , · 3. That the Notse Aba.tement office provlde vtable a~ternattves tn the alrcraft operational profile (aircraft type, number of operations, time of day, flight tracks, etc.) that may reduce the notse exposure wtthln the Ctty of Tustin. Should you have any questions or require additional Information, please contact either myself or the City's aircraft noise consultant, John Van Houten, at (714) ATTACHMENT I 300 Centennial Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 Hr. George Rebella -Cage' 1~o 544-.8890, extension 278 or 635-9520, .respectively. · Sincerely, Christine A. Shlngleton Dtrector of Community Development Steve Rubtn Sentor Planner CAS:SR:ts enclosure cc: Karen Robertson Ct ty Counc11 Board of-Supervisors Wtlllam Huston John Van Houten o. ~.n~osure 1 Review of the JWA Noise Study 1. There is no discussion of wind, cloud coverage or humidity, and their effects on the measured noise levels as compared to annual average day conditions. · · Microphones were at a height of 20' at all sites. Were they also 10' from reflective surfaces? (Roofs, patio covers, etc. ] 3. Did all sites have clear line of Sight to the aircraft flight paths? 4. There are no interior measurements, or analysis of noise reduction provided by typical construction. · Two flight tracks are identified in Appendix B, R-ILS and ILS. The County's test plan indicates that the energy · average SENEL and MNL will be calculated for each type of aircraft on each .flight track. Ail tracks have been com- bined. "'"' 6. What threshold was used at each position? 7. The'test plan indicates that measurements should continue at each position for a minimum of 7 days until the energy average SENEL for each type of aircraft has been measured to within a 90% confidence limit of ±'1 dB(A). The report indi- cates that the measurements were actually performed for 7 days at most sites, but that the 90% confidence limit of ± 1 dB(A) has not been achieved at a'number of positions for a variety of aircraft types. At positions for which measure- ments extended for more than 1 week, the data has not been combined to establish a data base for the site with one average SENEL and confidence level value for the entire measurement period. 8. There is no certification that the field measurements are true and correct. · What operational profile was used to calculate the CNEL values cited in Table 17 .nclosu=e 1, cont,.hued. 10. The basis for concluding that .no corrections to the measured SENELs is necessary is not clear. It would be helpful if .the threshold level at each site was identified and the analysis ' provided at each site for each aircraft type,. 11. There is no indication of the formula used to caiculate the 90% confidence limits. POTENTIAL AIRPORT SITES ASC MEETING OF MAY 20, :L989 1. Los Angeles Narbor 2. NaVal Weapons Station, Seal Beach 3a. AFRC Los AlamitOS (Joint Use) 3b. AFRC Los Alamttos (Cotmmerctal Use) 4a. MCAS E1 Toro (Jotnt Use) 4b. MCAS E1 Toro (Commercial Use) South Camp Pendleton 6. Lakevi ew Mountains 7a. March Air Force Base (offset) 7b. March Air Force Base (Commercial) · 8. Norton Air Force Bast (Commercial Use) · . 9. Bol sa Bay 10. Potrero Las PilnaS 11. Signal Peak 12. Cristianit°s Canyon 13. Huntington FlatS 14. Palomar .Airport · ,-r-r a, c_HMENT