Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 J.W. ACCESS PLAN 10-15-90TE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND October 8, 1990 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT ACCESS PLAN OLD BUSIN€SS NO. 1 10-1590 Inter - Com At the September 17, 1990, City Council meeting, the City Attorney was directed to conduct an in -depth -review of the EIR for the Airport Expansion in an attempt to identify areas of non- compliance with the County -approved Airport Access Plan. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The time to challenge the EIR for the Airport Expansion expired in 1985, but. the City can still insist that the County implement mitigation measures identified in the EIR if the County has failed to follow through on the measures. Our review showed that most of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR have been incorporated into the Access Plan or adopted by County ordinance. However, one item of concern to the City, peak hour restrictions on the total number of flights, was discontinued as a mitigation measure. Also, we have no evidence that another mitigation measure, requiring the County to request an FAA study of descent patterns to reduce noise, has been accomplished. As discussed more fully on pages 6-7 herein, we do not believe that -the foregoing deviations from the EIR provide the City with a strong argument to convince the County to address the City's concerns about the Access Plan. While the Airport Expansion EIR does not afford an immediate opportunity for the City to challenge the Access Plan, there may be future opportunities for the City to have its concerns addressed. As an example, the EIR states that the City of Tustin is outside the 60 dB CNEL contour. If City noise monitoring reveals that this is not the case and in fact the City is within a CNEL of 65 dB, or that single noise events are higher than allowed, then such new information provides a legal basis for the City to demand that a supplemental or subsequent EIR be prepared when the County considers approving any additional construction or amended policies for the Airport. Also, if parts of the City are found to be within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour, then the County Inter -Com to Honorable Members of the City Council October 8, 1990 Page -2- would be legally bound to implement noise mitigation measures. (California Code of Regulations, Title 21). In addition, we note that at the time the Access Plan was approved, the cargo carrier policy was not final. The environmental documentation had not been completed. Thus, the City still has the opportunity to provide input on the adequacy of the environmental review and the details of the proposed policy. In summary, we recommend that: 1. The City continue to monitor Airport noise and Airport operations for any new circumstances or facts that could trigger the legal requirement for a supplemental or subsequent EIR; 2. The City actively monitor, review and participate in the adoption of the final cargo carrier policy; and 3. City staff follow-up with the County on the status of the mitigation measure to request an FAA study of descent patterns. DISCUSSION 1. Background On Noise Monitoring And Regulations Airport noise regulations are governed by California Code of Regulations, Title 21. Title 21 states that 65 decibels (dB) of community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is the maximum level of noise acceptable to a reasonable person living within the vicinity of an airport. The Final EIR states, in Section 4.15.3.4.6 that the City of Tustin is outside the 60 dB CNEL contour. In other words, flights over Tustin measure at a noise level significantly lower than the Title 21 maximum level of noise acceptable to a reasonable person living with the vicinity of an airport. The CNEL is what is known as a cumulative noise descriptor. It takes into account a number of factors including loudness of a single aircraft, the number of aircraft flights, and the time of day in which the flights occur. A 3 dB increase in the CNEL level could represent a doubling of the number of aircraft events. For example, a CNEL of 65 dB at some location with 10 departures per day would increase to 68 dB CNEL if the number of departures doubled to 20 per day. Thus, a drop from 65 dB CNEL to below 60 dB CNEL is quite significant. Airports such as John Wayne with residential or other incompatible uses within their 65 dB CNEL noise contours are considered to have a noise problem and are required to take certain noise mitigation actions such as: Inter -Com to Honorable Members of the City Council October 8, 1990 Page -3- A. Noise monitoring; B. Quarterly noise reports to County. and State agencies; C. Development of a noise abatement program designed to reduce airport noise impact area to zero, i.e., no incompatible land uses within CNEL zone of 65 dB; and D. Apply for an annual variance. 2. Final EIR Mitigation'Measures The following mitigation measures were proposed in the Final EIR, Section 4.15.6.7.2: A. A general aviation noise ordinance was to be adopted which restricted the types of general aviation aircraft which could use John Wayne. Included in this would be the transition to an all Class A commercial fleet which was completed on June 1, 1984. A Class A aircraft is defined as an aircraft which does not exceed 100 dB Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL) at monitors 6 and 7, 98.5 dB SENEL at monitor 1, 100.8 dB SENEL at monitor 10, and 100.9 dB SENEL at monitor 11. Monitors 1, 6 and 7 are all monitors for departures. Monitor 6 is the closest to the airport, followed by monitor 7 and monitor 1. Class AA aircraft are somewhat less noisy and Class E aircraft quieter still. B. The Airport is to keep its present curfew regulations intact. The present regulations provide that there will be no take -offs between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. (8:00 A.M. on Sundays) and no landings between 11:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. (8:00 A.M. on Sundays). In addition, the Final EIR proposes to reduce the curfew -exempt noise criterion from 89.5 dB SENEL to 86.O dB SENEL. C. The number of departures was to be limited to 12 per hour applied to all hours of the day. This includes a maximum of 13 remaining overnight (RON) aircraft. The Final EIR notes that three airlines have argued that this mitigation measure is illegal. D. To lower the SENEL limits for Class A aircraft from 89.5 dB level and to lower the minimum average daily departure (ADD) regulatory threshold from 89.5 dB SENEL to 86.0 dB SENEL. Inter -Com to Honorable Members of the City Council October 8, 1990 Page -4- E. Encourage the introduction of Class AA aircraft. The Final EIR suggests a variety of mixed Class A, Class AA and Class E aircraft operations with varying noise impacts. F. Fix the maximum million annual passengers (MAP) at 10.24 MAP. The Final EIR predicts the MAP service level to hit'8.0 MAP in 1995. G. Pursuant to a suggestion by the City of Tustin, the County was to request that the FAA perform a study to identify the optimum descent pattern that would insure aircraft safety while reducing residential noise impacts. H. The County was to propose to the FAA that it study and consider approving the runway directional change alternative. This alternative would provide that more air carrier departures would be made to the north (toward Tustin) to distribute the noise contour more evenly between the southern and northern portions of the impact area. Aircraft can only take off to the north when the wind is calm or less than 5 knots to the north. The Final EIR states that historically this would mean that air carrier departures to the north would be from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 A.M., approximately 315 days per year. This mitigation measure would likely have a negative impact on noise levels over the City of Tustin, although the diagrams indicate that the entire City of Tustin would be below 60 dB CNEL, even with this change. 3. Mitigation Measures Which Have Been Implemented In reviewing County Ordinances and the Phase II Commercial Airline Access Plan, it appears that the following mitigation measures had been adopted: A. The proposed Ordinance to limit noise at John Wayne Airport was adopted and codified as Sections 2-1-204, et seq. The Ordinance incorporated the noise levels proposed by the Final EIR, stating that no commercial airline can operate out of John Wayne if SENEL values are over 98.5 dB at M 1, 100 dB at M 6. or 100 dB at M 7. It also kept in place the present curfews and added that the maximum permissible SENEL for aircraft operations at night, i.e., between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. (8:00 A.M. on Sundays); and landings between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. (8:00 A.M. on Sundays), cannot exceed 86 dB SENEL at any monitoring station. This is in line with Final EIR proposal numbers 1 and 2 above. Inter -Com to Honorable Members of the City Council October 8, 1990 Page -5- B. Exhibit "A" to the Agreement with Newport Beach identified as the "Noise Control Plan".. Exhibit "M" in the Final EIR, provides a cap for ADDs during Phase II. The cap provides that the airport cannot have more than 55 ADD Class A aircraft and 50 ADD Class AA aircraft. Class AA aircraft may be permitted to use Class A ADDs, but in no event shall more than 55 Class A ADDs be allowed during the term of the Agreement. This is in line with Final EIR proposal numbers 1 and 5 above. The P mitigation mitigation Ordinances address the hase II Access Plan does not address all of the measures referred to in the Final EIR. Some of those measures, as mentioned above, are addressed in the of the County of Orange. The Phase II Access Plan does following mitigation measures: A. The total allotted ADDs for Class A is 39 and for Class AA is 34. The County reserves the right, subject to its MAP and regulated ADD limits, to allocate supplemental operational capacity. This is in line with Final EIR proposal numbers 1 and 5 above and Sections 2-1-20 et seq, of the Orange County Ordinances. B. At the time the Plan was adopted, requests of two commercial cargo carriers to commence regular air service at John Wayne were pending and the environmental documentation necessary to allow the Board of Supervisors to consider the environmental and policy implications of the request had not been completed. Thus, the Phase II Access Plan adopted an interim County cargo policy in Section 3.6.2. The policy provides that a cargo carrier which wishes to operate a regularly scheduled service at John.Wayne may request an allocation of a regular Class E ADD for its operations. A Class E aircraft is the quietest of the three classes. This interim policy follows the staff's recommendation that no Class A ADDs be allocated to cargo carriers and that commercial passenger planes be given preference. C. The Airport Access Plan provides for a maximum RON of 22, which is higher than the Final EIR's 13. The reason for the maximum RON of 13 was to limit departures to 12 an hour at any time. However, this mitigation measure was not adopted. Inter -Com to Honorable Members of the City Council October 8, 1990 Page -6- 4. City of Tustin Concerns The four concerns addressed by the City of Tustin in its August 30, 1990 letter were: A. The term of the Access Plan was for 15 years and the City requested a shorter time frame, such as 5 years, for re- evaluation and also that certain events, i.e., an increase in noise complaints, trigger a re-evaluation. B. The City requested that a maximum SENEL be established at monitoring station M 5. C. The City requested that the County maintain controls over the number of operations per hour and that the operations should decrease after 7:00 P.M. D. The City expressed concerns over the type of aircraft used by the all -cargo operator and requested that limitations on hours of operation be discussed. As to A above, there did not appear to be anything in the Phase II Access Plan which addressed the City's concern over the term of the Agreement. The City's concern was that there would be a significant change in the fleet mix operating at John Wayne Airport over the next 15 years. However, the noise control plan does provide that no more than 55 ADD Class A aircraft are allowed and that no more than 105 combined Class A and Class AA ADD are permitted. Any change in the fleet mix that would affect noise would be, in our opinion, a change in circumstances or new information that would trigger the legal requirement for a supplemental or subsequent EIR. (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15162 and 15163.) As to B above, no maximum SENEL at Monitoring Station M 51r has been established, although the Ordinance does provide that no nighttime flights of planes with a SENEL level of 86 dB are allowed. As to C above, the Final EIR did limit the number of departures per hour to 12, but did not provide for a steady decrease after 7:00 P.M. County Staff recommended against the establishment of a peak departure limit, noting that the limit was imposed to mitigate traffic congestion and safety concerns during Phase I. Staff stated that traffic congestion and safety concerns had been alleviated during Phase II and thus, peak hour limits were not required. The City is more concerned with peak hour overflight noise, especially in the more sensitive 7:00 P.M. and later time Inter -Com to Honorable Members of the City Council October 8, 1990 Page -7- frame. However, the peak hour limitation measure was not proposed in the Final EIR for this purpose. The failure to continue this mitigation measure into Phase II is not significantly inconsistent with the Final EIR. As to D above, it appears that the interim cargo policy effectively deals with cargo flights, allocating only Class E ADDs for operations. County Staff recommended against providing Class A ADDS to cargo carriers and in any case, the number of Class A ADDs is limited. Unless the County has already acted on the permanent policy, the City still has the opportunity to voice its concerns on the environmental documentation and proposed policy. The staff report indicates.a preference for commercial flights receiving Class A ADDs. The access Plan does not discuss whether or not the County requested that a study of aircraft descent patterns be performed by the FAA or whether the study was in fact done. This was a mitigation measure proposed by the Final EIR, but from all indications, not followed. We need to discover whether this study was requested and/or.completed. lrz�o 5. LOIS E. JEFfpftg Assistant City Attorney DAD:rr:R:10/8/90:S\649.cj cc: W. Huston C. Shingleton R. Westfield DAVID A. DeftRkY Deputy City Atto