The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOB 1 J.W. AIRPORT RPT 09-18-89TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAII A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COt~UNITY DEVELOPf4ENT DEPARTMENT AIRPORT STATUS REPORT: JOHN HAYNE AIRPORT (d~lA), AIRPORT SITE COALITION (ASC), COALITION FOR A RESPONSIBLE AIRPORT SOLUTION (CRAS) RECOI~tENDATION 1) Provide direction to staff regarding contribution to CRAS. 2) Receive and file. DISCUSSION JWA - The City received a copy of the Phase 2 Access Plan on August 31, 1989. )[~-tached to this report is a letter to the County containing the City's comments. All comments from interested parties must be submitted to the County 'by 5 p.m. on September 20th. The Phase 2 Access Plan is scheduled to go before the County AirPort Commission on October 4 and the Board of Supervisors on October 11, 1989. A copy of the Phase 2 plan has been sent to John Van Houten for his use in preparing the final report on the County's noise monitoring plan. ASC - There is no new information to report at this time. CRAS - Pursuant to the Council's request, staff has obtained additional information r-'~rding the intended use of the requested contributions. According to CRAS, the monies would be used to fund membership drives, lobbying campaign against the Inter County Airport Authority's efforts to conduct a separate study regarding joint use of MCAS E1 Toro and lobbying efforts for Congressman Cox's proposed legislation to prohibit joint commercial use of MCAS E1 Toro. The lobbying efforts could include a massive mail campaign to State and Federal senators/legislators, press releases, and professional lobbyists, etc. The membership drive would be done via a mail campaign accompanied by press releases. All members of CRAS have been approached for contributions, including Cities, Homeowner's Associations and individuals. As stated in our last status report, member Cities have been asked for contributions, of $1,000 or more. The Council should review this request in light of the above information and provide appropriate direction to staff. City Council Report Airport Status Report September 18, 1989 Page two HOTF - The Task Force met on September 13th to provtde members the opportunity to comment on the ftnal revisions to the notse study and report to the Irvlne Ctty Counctl. The changes/revisions wtll have no bearing on the recommendations concerning the Irvlne/Reservolr Routes (I.e., no changes to Irvtne Route, do not create a Reservoir Route). SEe~ Rub.in ........ Associate Planner CAS-SR'kbc Attachment- Letter to County Community Development Department City of Tustin Community Development Department September 13, 1989 Mr. George A. Rebella Alrport Manager Oohn Wayne Airport 3151 Airway Avenue, #K-101 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SubJect: Phase 2 Access Plan Dear Mr. Rebella: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Phase 2 Access Plan for JWA, received by my office on August 31, 1989. Please find enclosed comments from the City of Tustin regarding the Phase 2 Access Plan staff report and recommendations. Please contact Steve Rubin with the City's Community Development Department at (714) 544-8890, extension 252 should you have any questions regarding the attached c omme n ts. Sincerely, Wi 111 am A. Huston City Manager Enclosure WAH:SR:kbc 300 Centennial Way · Tustin. California 92680 ° (714) 544-8890 CITY OF TUSTIN COMMENTS JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT PHASE 2 ACCESS PLAN STAFF REPORT AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS (AUGUST 1989) PEAK HOUR RESTRICTIONS The City of Tusttn understands that the Phase I "peak hour" restrictions pertained to departures, and were an attempt to mitigate traffic and safety impacts. Tustln further understands that as a result of street and apron improvements, such restrictions would no longer be necessary. As noted in our comments of February 15, 1989, Tustln is interested in minimizing impacts related to approach noise. To this end, the City of Tustin proposed that the County should maintain controls to limit the number of operations per hour, and that operations should be restricted such that they steadily decrease after 7 p.m., so that the last hour before curfew has no more than one-half the number of operations of the least busiest'evening hour. This would reduce overflight impacts during the more sensitive evening/night time hours. This was not addressed in Chapter VII of the Access Plan. RON (REMAIN OVER NIGHT) RESTRICTIONS Tustln recommends that should RONs be maximized, peak hour restrictions (noted above) should be imposed to avoid concentrations of in-bound flights in the evening hours. APPROACH NOISE "LIMITS" Page 198 of the Phase 2 Access Plan states .that Tustin recommends that approach noise of various aircraft types be "a prime determinant" in defining aircraft classification at JWA. This is not correct. In our previous comments, Tustin recommended that approach noise characteristics be given equal weight as departure noise characteristics when classifying any aircraft type as A, AA or E. The City of Tustln is appreciative of the County's efforts and expenditures to install the LDA. However, a prime factor for motivating the County was to remain in compliance with EIR $08, as approach operations using only the ILS was not a condition covered by that document, consequently had the LDA not been installed, additional environmental review would have been required. Furthermore, the County sought and received donations from the development community to pay for the equipment in part if not in whole. Installation of the LDA was not done merely to appease Tusti n. Likewise, the time and monies .expended on ~he noise monitoring program was considerable, and again, the City is appreciative of the County's efforts, despite the fact that the test program took approximately two years to complete from the time the County announced their intentions to conduct the study. A more cost effective and timely solution would have been to contract with Mestre Greve Associates for the same program. The City is still in the process of reviewing the final report and support data, but expects to send our final comments/observations to the County within the next 30 days. The most important issue to the City of Tustin, that is not addressed in the Phase 2 Access Plan, is to establish a maximum SENEL at monitoring station MS, similar to those established at monitoring stations M6 and M7 (or MiO and M11,'respectively). CITY OF TUSTIN COMMENTS continued September 13, 1989 Page t~o This criteria would then be included in defining the respective classes of aircraft types at JWA, as is presently done with the M6 and M7 stations. This is a reasonable request, and does not suggest that this be "a prime determinant" in such classifications, only one factor. The City of Tustin has as much right to be concerned about approach noise levels and their annoyance factors as the City of Newport Beach about departure noise levels and their annoyance factors. TERM In our comments on the first staff report for the Phase 2 Access Plan (December 1988), the City of Tustin provided the following recommendations regarding the issue of "Term", contained in that report- · That any changes in the general trend in noise complaints should trigger a review (Threshold criteria should be provided); . That a first review occur within two years of Plan adoption so that it is possible to "fine-tune" the Plan; 3. That reviews then occur at intervals of no greater than five years; . That significant changes in the fleet mix operating at JWA trigger a review; . That any proposal for a new airport serving all or part of Orange County trigger a review; and . That interested parties be afforded reasonable opportunities to review and respond to potential changes. This includes review of and response to the Phase 2 Access Plan itself. The August 1989 Phase 2 Access Plan does not address the issue of "Term". Tustin strongly recommends that "Term" be included in the Phase 2 Access Plan to provide appropriate review opportunities. ~