The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOB 1 J.W. AIRPORT RPT 06-20-88· OLD BUSINESS 6./ ,~, ."~ .~'~.. ' ': ~./ "'"', NO. I TO: WILLIAN HUSTON, CIll' I*.ANAGER FROM: COHI~NITY DEYELOPIqEt~ DEPARTlqENT SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT - ,]ida (30HN #AYNE AIRPORT), CRAS (COALITION FOR A RESPONSIBLE AIRPORT SOLUTZON) AND ASC (AIRPORT SITE COALITZON) RECOHHENDATION Receive and file.. DZSCUSSZON JWA (John Wayne Airport) - Based upon a conversation with Karen Robertson of JWA on June 14th~' the current status of the noise measurement program is as follows: · 2 pieces of new equipment had to be' sent back to the East Coast due to malfunctions. One piece is enroute back to JWA, the second is expected to fo 11 ow shortly. 12 staff people have been hired to man and operate the m°ni~oring equipment (8 full-time, 4 part time); final clearances from the County Personnel Office are pending. An operations manual is being prepared so as to commence training personnel the week of June 20th. ° If all goes well, testing is expected to commence the week of June 27th. Staff will inform Council of any new developments. CRAS (Coalition for a Responsib. le.i. Airport Site)l -- Staff attended the June 13th meeting at which time CRAS discussed the FAA study on joint use of MCAS E1 Toro. The report to Congress discusses the technical feasibility of joint use of three military facilities, MCAS E1 Toro is one of them; a copy of this report has been attached for the Council's information. As noted in our previous status report, the FAA report finds joint use technically feasible; however, it would have at least two shortcomings from a national viewpoint: (1) due to Marine Corps activity, only about 1/3 of the capacity of the base could be used by civil aircraft, leaving a large part of the air passenger demand unmet, and {2) the Marine Corps believes that joint use would degrade the technical training missions assigned to E1 Toro. The FAA recommends that an in-depth study of alternatives to meet air transportation demand be conducted by the State, the County and other appropriate agencies in close cooperation with the FAA and Marine Corps. {The ASC efforts may be construed to be meeting this recommendation). City Counctl Report JWA June 20, !988 Page ~o In addition to discussing the FAA report, CRAS also: Focused on the need for more support from cities and Homeowner's Associations, i.e. expanding membership. Intends on having 20 to 30 members attend the next ASC meeting to ensure that their "voice" is heard. ° Established a goal to suggest alternative locations for airport sites. Established ~ goal to compile a list of facilities 'that have, or have been considered for, joint civilian, commercial and military use. At the meeting of June 6, 1988, the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution opposing joint use of MCAS E1 Toro. Such a resolution haS been prepared and is on the consent calendar of the Agenca for tonight's meeting. ASC (Airport Site Coalition) - The next ASC meeting has been rescheduled from Wednesday, June 22nd, to Saturday, June 25th at 8:45 a.m. to 12 noon. It will be held at the Fluor Corp. building, located at the inter.iectton of Michelson and Mac ~tthur, in the City of Irvine. Senior Planner SR:pef Attachments: FAA Report Director of 'Community DeVelopment Community Development Department '! I"1 A Y "8 8 1 4.: 5 0 B A E.', H.A r,1 [:, c E:, n PO 1 R~port to Congress Technical Feasibility of d(}iet Use Scott kFB, Selfridge AGB, .and El Toro U,S. OEP.~RTMENT OF TRANSPgRTA'TION Federal Aviation Admln'wu'adon MAY 12 1988 · OfflC, of U1, Wasnm~loa. D.C. 20591 jo£aC clvtl/~ilicary use o~ Scott Al= Force Base (.~n), Sel~=£dSe Air ~uard Base (A~), and E1Toro~a=ine Co=ps A~r SCaC~on (MCAS). T~is repor~ is ~u =emponse co the ~ 1988 ApproprlaC~ons Cosec=eeo direc~ion ~n Rouse ~epo~c 100-~98. We determined chac joint use ts technically ~eam£ble a= all three locations when evaluated ~oF ~hose aspects o£ ~ivtl aviation ~n v~ich we have ezper~£s~. Ho~eve=, ~here are alms ~lAtar2 cca'side=a~iofls, ~hich a~e m~a=ized in the ~iaa! mect£ou o~ this ~epo~c. The ~li~a~y's comte=mm mueC be resolved, because jo£nt nme can be accomplished only with the spouso~sh£p o~ the State o~ a local agency and. %he cooperation o~ the military. A Sta~e .arid county Sponmored proposal ~o= Joint use si Scoot A~G is already well advanced and could be implemented ~£thin the next 3 ~o ~ yea~s. This could enable ~he S~, Louis re,ion to meet the aeronau~ical demand cha~ £8 expected yell £nCo ~he 21ac century. Joint uae o~[er$ a practical soluc£ou to congestion in the SC. Louis a~= cra~£~c hub, which otherwise threatens co become a bottleneck, couscrain£ng ~he f~ow o~ a~r cra~ic scream the Nation. Planning is in the early stages ~o= pubI£c airport ~ac~lic~es ~n Macsub County, ~ich£gan. Jo£nC use o~ SaL£r£dge AC~ ~ill be icu~£ed in ~eCail. ~e recom~em~ ~h&~ particalar aCteflcion be ~£wn co ~imiced ~oi. nC use o£ Sel~ri~g4 by a£r cattier, co~mnu~er, and corporate aircraft, with ocher civil ai~cr~fh b~in~ acccn~nodated ac a publicly owned airports The combination of the acqu£s£C£on or development si a publicly o~rned general avia~£on airport supplemented by limited joint use of Selfr£dge appears to be an appropriate and a~[ordable answer ~o air craasporcat£o- ne~ds in cbc area northeasC of Decro£c. curacy to ~timulace local, regional, and Scare o£~icials coward ~he partia~ solution of a seciou~ problem that' threatens co develop face a naC[ona~ cr~e[s. Passenger demand w£~l more than double in the Los Angeles region over ~be aex~ 2~ yecrs. Thece are plans ~o expan~ ex~stin~ a~rporns, but they are likely to ~all short o~ vhac is required, Un,ess timely action ~s MAY ' 88 1.4.:._, BA[:,H.Ai"I [:,C l::,O F'O._,'-". the ~t2on. ~ Toro ~A~ ~s' well lo~a~ed to aceo~oda~e oo~ercial avian&on{ ~owev~ ]o~b u~e would ~ve ab lea~ ~wo sho~o~~ from a na~&onal v~e~o~. F~ because Of ~ne ~rps ac~iv~7~ on17 abou~ one-~d of ~he ~apaui~y of ~he base could be used by ~h~eforo~ a ~P~e p=t of ~he aI~ passe~ de--nd would be le~.u~e~. S~ond~ the ~e ~rp~ believes ~t Jo~ use would dog,de ~he tactical ~ra~ ~ssion a~&ned ~o ~ To~o. We reco~eud ~ ~ in~epth s:udy of alt~~Ives to m%e~ a~ ~p~a~ion de~-d be uonduo~ bY ~he S~a~e of ~=n~ ~e ~unty, ~d ~h~ app~prla~e ~enoles, in. Lnt, end to spo~ Jo~: use ~en~a. Oe~a ~y be ~mued ~d~ ~he ~ou~ ~rove~t ~og~ (~P) ~o pl~ ~d ~ple~t c&v&L develcpme~ at deaar~b~ ~ t~e ~p~men~' of ~~porta2ion/~p~-~en~ of ~fen~e PI~ for Jg~t ~e p~ ~li~ ~rff~elds, p~sen~ed to ~~ in 198~. We ~e v~y ln~e~ ~ p~ti~ipa~ ~ uegotia~io~ ~ Jolt use, ~ ord~ to ensure t~: no~h~ ~ ~he ~em~t p~oludes the sponsor ~m be~ el~ible for ~P g~s ~d co~l~ ~:h n~ess~y ~vi~~bal~ safe~y, and security ~eq~e~s bef~e ~P gr~ ~ be ~sued. We app~ec._ate ~av&n& Wad the opportun£~y bo prepare ~he ~epor~ end loo~ forward ~o helping ~o /mplemen~ the :7.dent:cal let, te~s and ~epor~a are be~.u&' pr~v~-ded ~,o Charon Laue. enber8 and ~r, enn~$~ ~nator D'A~a~,o, and Repreaen~.a~.tve Coushlin. r,1 A v 1 ~ ." ,-, - · .., ¢,:: 14: 53. BA[:,HAr,1 [:,C DC[ p.[-~ 3'~[.,'~- or COh'~'Eh'~3 ~ev&e~ of Join[ Use Po~en%taZ~ ~~ ~. · · · · · · · · .... · aevi~ cf Joint Uae Potential, ~fri~e A~B .,.. · · . · · · · . . , ~eview of J=~ use, ~ Toro ~i~ . · · . · · · · · · · . . . · - · Appendice. F2nanc2~36 JoZ3~ Uae Developmen~ ' Abbreviat~ Ohm ii 1 ? 16 · .e 13 .'8:-,, 1,4:.., =..., B DH r,1 DC Dn PO5 ThLs report; ~as p~pa~ea ~n ~espon~e ~o ~e ~he ~ 1988 ~pp~p~La~Lon~ Confe~es-d~ec~ion ~n ~use ~eport 100-~98~ which '~ncluded the follow~ Join~ CXvXl-H~ll~a_ry .Us~ of Air£Aelds. - The eonfe~ees feasibility of J~in~ clvll~ili~y aviation use ~rlne ~se, ~l~ornia~ ~lfrldse Field, ~oh~an; ~r Force ~se, Illlao~. ~is s~ud2 should consid~ a~- field, ~~1, and access ~sues, and any p~vious studies' Conducted by Fe~al, S~a~e, ragional or local au~ori~ies ~ha~ evaluate ~he sh~%~n~ long-%efta ~po~anoe ~e faol~les ~ alleviate ~he shot%age ~f eivil a~r~ ~d a~spaee capacity. ~e FAA shall repo~ ~o ~he ~use ~a~e ~~t~ees on ~p~p~ia~ions no~ ~er ~ ~r~h 31, ~988, and, ~ Jo~-~se ~ de~ned ~o be feasible, ~e F~ shall ~eeo~end ~hose s~eps ~ha~ necess~y ~o ~plen~ Jo~se ~ree~n~s. The report was prepared by tJae FAA with· of Defense. FAA speQlallsts in airport planning and air traffic control reviewed pr$c~ studies and visited each airfield, meeting with lc~al off. ielals~, transpc~ta~lon planners_, and rep~esen~atives of The ?AA assessed the civil demand at each airfield and described a possible approac~ to meetln~ ~hat demand through Joint use'. Various aspe~ ~ere evaluated, including air ~affia control, availability of a site ~or civil developmen~ =n o~ adjacent ~o the airfield, and adequacy of ground a~=ess. The FAA analysis did not include an assessment of environmental im. pac~, whi~ must be prepared b7 the Department of Defense prior to an7 Joint use a~ee~ent, The FAA found ~at Joint use is ~ec~nxcally feasible at all ~h~ee looa- ~ions. T~Is indicates ~hat ~oin~ use could be accomplished if it were sponsored bM an appropriate public agency and were agreeable Depar~men~ of Defense. However, ~he mili~a~7 have concerns, as in their co#~ents ~hich are conta~ed in ~he final sea,ion Of t~t= meport. The FAA has meco,~ended ~at potential sponsors prepare plans ~o mespond those ~once~ns and provide a foundation for eventual Jcin~ use agreements o . REV'ZEal OF JOZh'T U3E PO'I'ENT:ZAL ,T.,L TORO HAR:T. NIC CORPS O~tAl~IGE COUNT'~t CALZFOI~h'ZA o. llack~ound O~an~e Count, y, in the southern por~,ion oi' the ~a ~ge~ee ~et~opo~u' ~s one of ~e ~t ~p~dly ~evelop~ ~eaa ~n t~e ~on. ~e ~~ p~u~t~ou ~d v~b~nt eoono~ ~en~a~e · h~e ~ket f~ ~p~atton. ~ile air o~ri~ s~vlce ~ avat~ble a~ ~o~ ~e ~~e ~r~ to o~a~ ~ltgh~ ~o dea~ina~io~ ~ot s~vieed by ~he John ~e a ~J~ 'hub ~ ~f~ point. ~e a~~ ~ v~2 o~el~J de~ oos~ ~e a~lines ~d ~e~ ~~~s a~s~ ~00 ~llion. ~s ~eles ~ a ~sul~, ~h~e ~ ~le p~speo~ for re~ev~s ~Mes~lon a~ an ~evi~able ~d subs~ial ~oriase ~ de~d ~ a~ ~a~p~a~ion. A a~les of p~~ ~udies ~ve ad~e~ ~ p~blel bu~ failed ~ ~i~d a solu~on. Top~phy ~d urb~ developmen~ 'res~rio~ ~he op~i~s ~o~ develop~ a ~~ sew a~~. ~s~ s~udies ~ve s~ved ~ ~le ov~ tiCk,ives, have no~ iden~ied a ~kable solute. A la~e p~ of ~e pub~o eleo~ o~ioials p~f~ ~o .add Mpaoi~y in ~11 ~~s a~ ez~~ air- p~s ~o sa~2 ~~ia~e ~quirem~s~ ~and ~o tel2 on ~es~ed ~noep~s vaguely defined p~posals ~o m~ fu~e needs. ~~h~ initial-iVes po~c2 re~rio~ions on airp~ capaol~y refleo~ ~he ~d of ~he region. ~e ~ o~ ~ adeg~e p~n for a~~ developmen~ ~s na~i~l b~use ~he ~ion mst have conveni~ air access ~o ~he ~~e ~~ ~ea. ~e ~el already p~ys i vl~al ~le in ~he ma~ional e~ono~, and ~ g~l~. Join~ use of ~ Toro ~ine ~rps ~r S~a~ion (~) s~e~ed as one p~ of ~he ~olu~ion. -- E1 Toro ~CAS ts looated on a '~,?00 acre parcel in Cen~al Orange County, Califc~nia. ?he MCA~ is wi~Aln an unincorporated a~ea of O~ange County subject ~o a proposed annexa~ion bM ~e ClW of Irvine, California. The surrounding oom~uni~ies have implemented land' use poliQies, zoning, and guidelines for ~e public's aa.~et7 and welfare, and ~o prote~ and preserve the ~ili~arT mission. An Air Installation Compatibility Use Zone (AICUZ) s~udy is ~he basis for land -, use in ~he area. Paoili.ties E1 Toro ~J~AS has ~wo sets of olosel2 spaoed parallel runwayo wi~h a oen~e~li~e aepara~ic~ of ~00 fee~, and one limited use munwa2. ~unwa2 ~ ~L/~ is 10,000 feet lcng b2 250 fee~ wide~ runway 16R/~L is ~,~10 fee~ long by ~0 feet wide. Runway 3#R wi~h ~lg~ intensity lights and a short approach light system (SAL~) emergency ~re~ln~ eT~em. ~r~en~ app~a~em '~o ~~y 3~B ln~u~e VO~, used f~ Field ~ier ~ndi~ ~a~ti~e by Tactical Flgh~e~ a~r~~. ?~ sad 7E, whl=h ~e B,000 fee~ long bM ~0 fee~ ~de ~e pr~riiM used ~epar~=~a. ~wev~, ~nd comdi~io~ ~d ~e l~ad c~ ability o~ airc~f~ would res~ric~ the ~se o~ ~way 7 bM civil aircraft. ~ such ~aes, an~h~ ~wa2 mua~ ~ u~llized. ~1 r~ways ~ave dish,ce ~e~~ si~s. ~aways 7Z2~ have ~l~lrec~iomal a~es~lng cable~. ~n~a7 ~Z21 ls 3~00 fee~ lomg bY 1~ fee~ ~de. I~ ~ n~~Y used b7 the ~rine ~rps ~ro Club aircraft. C-~ ~d ~1~1 air~raf~ ~e p~ked on. ~n~7 ~Z~I for l~d~g ~d .~-l~d~g .equipmea~ ~urlng ~biliza~lom exe~iaes. ~e P~ ~ea adJacen~ Air frei~h~ and passenger services for military personnel are conducted in Building 624 close to %he ~unwa7 16R threshold. E1 Toro ~CA$ is opera, ed in direc~ support of ~e ~ac~lcal ~rainl~ ~d =o~a~ r~d~e~ re~uire~a of the ~ird ~rine ~c~ ~. ~ Toro also p~vidas se~ and ~soue, s~age ~d ~~aaoe f~ o~her ~ee~ ~~e s~ves aa an e~edl~io~7 ~e f~ ~ine ~rps an~ Join~ s~vloe ~biliza- ~iom and ~ao~ioal deplo~en~ exe~es, and ~ ~ Aerial Por~ f~ ~r~p movem~a ~d oon~i~en~7 moblliza~ion. ~e ~lrd ~~e ~rcr~ ~ (3~ ~W) conduc~a on-go~ r~ad~ess ~a~~ ~ flgh~ as the a~ oo~onen~ of ~he ~rine ~r~~d Te~. ~e ~/A-18 pilo~ qua~flca~lon ~a~~ squadron located a~ ~h.~ air s~ation, ~lly ~ra~s ~00 ~W and ~rine pilo~ a~llT, A ~rine ~eserve ~rcraft Group ~h one F-~ P~tom ~ one C~-~6 Sea ~h~ ~lioop~er ~~on ~ also a~igned ~o ~ To~o. There are 1~3 aircraf~ at E1 Toro MOAS. T~ese aircraf~ account rcm abcu~ 112,000 annual opera;icftu. ~y 1~9~, the number of ~ased alrcraf~ is an~Ic'.pa~ed ~o reach ~9~ aircraf~ ~h ~he sedition of P/l~'s and MV-22 Osprey ~y !9~8, there 'will be'~0,000 opera,ions, X.~cluding a~x3u~ 72,000 Je~ ~pera- ~icns. Field Carrier Landing Practice ~P~LP) ~raining senera~es approximately 7,000 a~nual opera~ions, and ~he use of o~he.~ runways is severely durin~ ~hese ~rainir~ periods~ Abou~ ~7 million passengers were enplanes in ~3e ~os Angeles re,ion in 1~6. The ~th~n California Association c£ Government~ (*~CAG) for=cas~s *.ha~ over 59 m!llic~ p~aa=n~ers will be enplaned in the Los Angeles re_gion in ~be year Z010. ~ty-t~ree percent of these will ori~inate in Or.~n~e County. -17- ~ ~a~ ~r~rts. ~less these policies ~e ohar~ed ~d addl~l -capacity ~s p~vided, one In foup passengers could be den~ s~y~oe ~ the. ~I~Y de-~d. ~e F~ es~ate3 ~ha% the cu~en~ ~~Y ~ou~ ~uld the f~ec~st ~!it~y de~d for ~998 plus ~out 50,000 ciFil annually, or 70 da~ scheduled dep~-tu~ b7 a~r c~~ a~c~ft. ~pand~ on a~rcraf~ ~ize and l~d faet~, ~h~ ~uld p~~ 2.~ to 3.6 ~l~on nements ~u~!ly a~ ~ Toro, ~ch oo~d accomodate a p~% of the ~ture de~d fo~ a~r _Prior __ A aumber of studies have addressed Joins use of Z1 Toro ~A~. ~e souses conclusions ~e ~s~ed below~ a. ~6~/~70~ ~~e ~Y ~~pcr~ation Pi~ ~lor~ ~he possibility cf ~t~ Joln~-use, bu~ concluded t~at such use would no~ be ~atlble the ~lne ~rps Tac~cal ~sicn. . b. ~, ~uth~n ~l~nia' ~ocla~lon cf ~v~~n~s p~~ a ~ud7 that p~posed 6.7 ~llion ~~1 paperers a~ ~ Toro. ~nc~~t development at ~ ~endle=on ~s s~gest~ b~ f~sibili~y ~s questioned. c. 1~7~, City cf He~Or~ ~ach ~plored the f~sibili~y o~ oth~ si~es .~~~ould r~uce the ~paot of John-Wa~e ~por~ o~ ~t city. fl~ rec~enda~icn ~ued. 'd. ~, ~an~e ~ty ~uperv~s suborned a p~aal ~ ~ Tomo Joint use ~o ~he ~et~y of ~he ~. ~e U.S. ~vy ~Jeot~ the p~se! b~ause of ~co~atib~li~y ~th the tactical ~asion assi~ ~c Toro. exp~ded civil use of ~ Toro ~AS could confllc~ '~h John ~e-~~e ~y. ~e2 s~ea~ed co,ideation.of a~ a!~~te si~e. f. 1~8~, ~uth~n ~l~nia ~sociation of ~v~nts e~!e~d a detaile'~ stud7 which co, idled the conv~sion cf ~ Toro ~ to solely =~cXal aviation uae. g. 1~8~, city of Ne~ort p~p~ed a docent entitled "~e ~r~le ~lution~ ~hich rec~ended ~he Jc~t use off ~ Toro MCA~ In ~~ to ~e no~e ~p~c~ of a~oraft cp~a~icns a~ the John ~yne MAY "88 14:58 BAC, HAM C,C DO I:'1 0 d~de~e ~o~ possible ]o~n~ use. ~e ~esu~S P~ ~o~ Jo~ Uae U~e ~l~ta~. ~:~ield~ Jolnt~ sub~tted b7 the ~ret~ry ~f T~anspcrtat~on tn~ ~cretary of ~fense on ~rch 8, 1~8~, p~sed facilities acco~atm 10,000 ~nual air .c~rier op~ati~ and 500,000 ~nual passer,s. ~m study recognized the e~st~ce of co~un~ty oppositioa based on envl~~tal ~sues. ~D objected to ~o~t use because of inco~atibllit7 with ~lit~7 op~atie~. Air, Traffic · The a:~.rspace ~ the Orange County a~ea is ve~ heavily wY~ a~rc~a~t ~d hel~co~t~s, e~ c~2~, end ~e~l av~t~on a~c~ft '~e ~equent f~h~ tc ~d f~m the ~ea t~ed t~o~ the ~te~ve apDl~cat~on of po=~t~ve a~ tra~c'control p~cedure~. ~s results ~ a hea~ ~kl~d for a~ t~lc controll~. ~way ~B is the pr~~ ~ival ~wey at ~-Tcro. ~e ~pp~ach o~id~ does not conflict ~th the no, h-south V-~ air~y. ~ addition ~o havi~ a special use app~a~ ~ea, positive sep~atlon and control F~ air ~a~ic control facility, the ~ast ~accn. ~n~y 7~ dep~tures do not conflict ~th ~ght ~acks associated ~t2 oth~ airp~ts · ~wev~, tallwln~ conditlo~, ~way gredlent, ~d payl~d ~tatio~ ~uld ~strict use of ~2 7R bY cXvil airc~ft. ~p~ures would . then use ~~Y ~R, WYI~ ~uld ~quire sequenc~ ~th the ~~e ~ty instr~en~ approach ~a~'c to ~way ~. ~n~y ~"B dep~ures w~uld also require coord~aticn ~th V~B, ~, and p~ctice ~R ~elicopter traffic into ~stln ~. ~spite sequenc~g, additional air traffic us~g ~ Toro would cause delays ~ the a~ ~d on the g~d.. ~sed cn p~Jected ]~8 ~li~Y op~atlcns, the a~ort ~acity available f~ civil use ~~ts tc about ~0,000 cp~aticns ~ually. ~ls ~'ld pe~t 70 av~age dai~ dentures b2 a~ ~rl~ aircraft. ~e airspace appe~s to ~e capable cf h~dling th~ additio~l tragic subdect to the F~ ~ ~ssed app~ach p~ced~es sequenc~g, hcwev~, would not e~nate delays on tie g~d and ~ the a~. FAA representatives visited E1 Toro YeAS and deterred, ned that the. military pe~so~-nel are strongly opposed to Joint uae. The primary objection is that Joint uae i~ incompatible with the tactical mission of the M~rines at E1 Toro. The Marines want to preserve flexibility in how they use tbs base ~nd need to ensure the separation of heavily e.~med mi!italy aircraft from civilian flights. They also foresee air traffic control problems and delays if Joint use is permitted, and they do not want to uPset the noise abatement ~nd land use ~greements that they have developed with local coz=unities in order to provide fc~ '.he public safety and welfare, and to maintain cc~atibtllty ~_th surrcu~ding land uses. E1 Toro's site is very well suited to ~Arlne req~ime- memts, 'eit~ r~ady access to Yuma MCAS, 89 Palms, the loCi=tics facility at ~ars~oee, and, most important, only $ m~e. utes flying time to CAr~ Pendleton. The ~rines are ad_-~nt about their need for e viable tactical ~irfleld in the &re& o No specific sponsor has been identified yet, but Orange Coun'.~ woul~ be a~ appropriate, and capable sponsor. An alternative would be the Lurer-County 'Airport Authority. Another capable sponsor is the ~outhern California ~egic~al Airport Auhhcn-ity, which was created to implement the regional airport-syste~ plan of the Southern California Association of 6overnmen~s. The Airpcn-t Au~hority is not expected to interject l~self ln~o the El Toro issue unless t~e local and county government fall to take appropriate ae~iom. -- The attitude of residents throughout the county.varies. ~t, the ad,scent ~o E1 To~.o ~AS and ~d~in~ the app~ach ~d de~~ oppose Jolt use. ~ey ~ve an excellen~ relationship ~th ~he ~r~es, are acoustical to ~~y flight p~edures, ~d suppom~ ~he role t~at ~ Toro plays in national defense. ~d use ~o~d ~he base has b~n c~e~y deve- lop~ to achieve compatibility ~th ~1i~2 o~raYio~ ~d ~ p~de for publio s~fety ~d we~e. ~e ne~h~O~ ~e conc~ned t~ Jc~t uae ~gh2 disrupt ~li~y op~ations, con~es~ ~e. a~space, imcr~se mc~e levels upset land use cc~atibllity. ~e p~spao~ of industrial or c~~olal deve- lopment ~und khe base and co~es~ion of shree~s ~d free,ye ~ a serious loaal ~om a b~ad~, regional vle~oxn~ ~here appe~s ~o be a ~a~ de~ of for Jo~ use of E1 Toro as a 'p~t of the solution ~o a regio~l air ~r~spor- ration p~ble~. ~posed C~v~! Join~ use would rely heavily on the existing runways and taxlways at E1 Toro with mc~Iftcatlons. A new civil terminal woul~ be required. A possible sl~e would he on land to ~e acquired along the west property l~.ne of the ~ase. This site woul~ be attractive because it would have an access r~ad ~o the ~anta Anna Freeway (I-~) independent of the base. The terminal w~uld be con- nected to ~he base by a ~axlway. This type of operation is called 't~rou&2 the fence# and minimizes some, but no~ all, impacts on military operations. Cern. sin other airfield i~provements, would probably be needed to support use. A precision ~r~en~ app~ach, either ~stm~nt ~d~ system cr ~cro~ve l~d~ =ys~em (~), would be ir~talled ~ ~y ~,~ with app~pria~a app~ach ~d ~wa7 ~gh%i~. ~e cu~ent i~tr~nt p~ca~ures at ~ Toro ~e ff~ ~11~7 p~ses cnlT. ~ey ~uld ~ve ~o revl~ed ~d validated flor civil use. ~~7 7R/254 ~t be extemded up to ~,000 feat in m.C~ ~o p~vIde a~le ~way leith for u~estrict~ o~ations by ~t and ~.Clum haul air ~ri~ aircraft. ~20- MA'./ 13 "8:-: 15:01 8A[:,HAt,1 5.',;-: E~yi ,r ,onm.ent al~ Xmpac_t If civil aircraft using E1 Toro used the quieter Sta~e 3 airc~aft,, the increase of noise levels around E1 Toro would be less than ~f non-Stage $ aircraft were used. Nevertheless, even the use cf Stage 3 aircraft w~uld have an additive impact on community noise. A variety of .other ~mpacts would be expected as a result of Joint use, includln~ th~ physical effects of con~tructlon, additional vehicle trips to the area, and. possible acceleration of comerclal development. These cannot be anaLvzad without a detailed proposal. A thorough review of environmental Lmpact w~uld be required prior to the implementation of a ~oin~, uso agreement. Recommended Action ,, Use of E1 Toro MCA~ by civil air carrier a~rcraft is technically feasible and could play a role ~n accommodating future air passer, get demand in ~uthern California. However, civil use depends on the concurrence of the military, and the ~rine Corps is opposed to Joint use cf E1 Toro et this time. ?me objections posed .by the Marines war~ant th~ug, htful consideration. A solution must be found that meets both national'defense and national t~anspc~tation requirements. Time is cf t~e essence, because the shortage of air carrier airpa-t capacity is already serious. Also, a ~reat deal of real es~a~e devel~Pment is occurring around E1 Toro and a decision c~ the long range disposition ~f the alr~teld will help guide land use decisions and avoid future conflic~ · ~ ' It is r~commimded that the Southern California Assoclatio: of ~ver,mments (SCA~) assisi~ed by the State of California in cooperation with Oren~ge County, the ~outhe~ California Regional Airport Authority or other apprcpr.~te agencies develop alternatives and implementation plans to meet ~he air passenger de~d in Southern CaLifc~nia. These alternatives should' include the possibility of mitigating locally-Imposed restrictions on air cz.~rier access to ex h~ting civil airports in the region, and the potential for ~cint use cf military air facilities. This analysis of alternatives end reco~ended lmplementati ~n should be closely coordinated with the FAA and the Dep~ment of Defense, 'In the event ~oint use of a military facility is rec~ended, the proposed implementation should assure the ncndegra~ation of the military operations a~ the air field. The FAA is ready to facilitate this eff. o.-t, and also provide appropriate technical and financial assist~nce. -21- MAY ~,: 0~. BADHAM DC CONTROl, TOWER 'ItV~Y 3-21 RE$1'R. ICTED TO VI:I~ DAYLIGHT OPERA'rIGYd$ ~ MCA5 El. ¥OgO CLU~ AND kIJLIT~tY I't...LICOPT~R5 . .o Et. T~'~O 1F_, .' :-:8 le ~,: O~ BA[:,HAI',I [:,C DO C~:ENT,8 OF '17~II~ ' ~ D D 0 HAM L; F, 1= OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON, D.C. ~03~1 mar: 1 ~ M~. l%obe;~ L. Donahue Associate kdministzato~ re= Aitpotts Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washlngto~, D.C. 20591 In the sho~t time available, =he Air Fo=ce and Marine Co=ps h. ave evalu, ated your draft report on =he technical feasibility of ]oin~ civxl-milita=¥ use of E1 Toro ~CAS, Sel~=id~e AF~, and Scott ~. The comments provided am at~ached s~and by themselves, but wAFe ~hink tha~ a fo=ewoz~ is nece~sa=y.to emphasize ~he D~p~==ment of Defense's overall view of the s~udy. · ' · £ civil aviation using · Xssues ~ffectin9 the feasib~lity o military bases are very broa8 in nature. T,~ey lnciuae not only chnical ma~te=s such as the runways, =azi~ays, ~mps, and ~e...~___ ~--~ ---- -~ economic, environmental, and nati?n~l. "~ .......... ; the -tecnnzca~ Con =ess, concerns itself only with ........ ~easibil~t2 _of.]o}~t u~e:: .~ ~[-...~.~ the dif~erence .between =rr-;-. __.._;.~~,,. as used by this zepo¢~ 'eno asibilit bases upon a~i =a~u~- ~e Y - -~ as outlined in the [h~ou~h a complete Joint use .s~udy Department of ~anspo=tation/Pepa:tment of Defense ~ae ~ ~{~i~rv AA~,i~l~, p~esented to Congress in 1984, cen a ~ope~ ~udge~t ~e made as to whether joint use ~hould actually be un~e. ~ak es. ~he Department si Defense is not oppose~ to the principle of ~oint use of its airfields. ~he fact that over 20 o~ our .RXlitary airfields a~e presently ~oint ~se should be adjudge 8owever, the ~ecision for or a~ainst joint use ~ be a deliberate and comprehensive p~ess, not jus~ an evaluation of '=echn!cal ~easibility.' F' I .F.; We app~eciate the oppo=tun£ty to =es:pond to you= £epo=t and you~ coop~ation In ~l~owtn9 us ~o make co~en~ on ~h~ bo~y o~ 1, Scott AFB Comments 2. E1 To:o I~¢AS ¢onunents 3, Self~idge AFB Comments D~FARTM=NT OF'TH= NAVY C O~/4~NTS ON MCAS EL TORO JOINT US~ 1. FeasibilitY~ On numerous occasions, the Department of the Navy has stated its PoSition on the joint civil/military use o~ Marine Corps Air Station, E1 Toro, California. This position has been that the Department is unequivocally opposed to joint use. There is no new information provided in this study which would e~tabli=h a basis to change that posi=ion. While Joint ¢ivil~militarY u~e of E1 Toro may be "=eohnioally feasible' in theory, it i~ neither prudent nor p~actical from a military operational perspec=ive. Clearly, ~he introduction o~ civil aircraft at E1 Toro ~egra~es =he tactical =raining mission of the installation. 2. Comm.~nit /EnVironmental Conce.=ns: . Marine Corps Air Station, E1 T~ro provides a vital llnk in the security ~of =his nation. The Marines believe they are per- forming =his ~esponsibility well, and are actin~ as good neighbors in Southe=n California. For many years, the Marine Co=p~ has worke~ closely wi=h the co~uni:ies ~urrounding Marine Co~s Air Station, El Toro to develop compatibility ~tween land uoes an4 the installation'S essential military aircraft operations. ~ecause of the close coordination with, an~ cooperation of its nei~ors, the Air Station r~ains a viable tee=leal training airfield and en~oys strong co~uni:y support. The Department of the Na~ is gravely =oncerne~ tha~ well mman~ but narrowly considered measures intended ~o ~a=isfy air passenger demand in Southern California will prove inimical :he interests of our neighbors. This woul~ surely place in jeopardy the hard won and greatly valued coopers=ire 'that now exists. 3 National Air Transpq==atlon Sv~t~ The D~pa~ent of the Na~ ~eadily ackn~le~g~s the magnitude of the problems i~volved' i~ achieving adequate airart capaci=y ~ic~. Z= is truly a ~ational issue, not susceptlble =o solution =empo=a~ relief ~'or this reason, we believe a comprehe:~sive effo~ i~ ~equired, involving all pa..les who cmn ~ke a con=ri- buti~n ~o resolution, inclu~ing the air 9ropTietors and surrounding c~unities whose int~rea=m may be impscted. Fu~=, ~e Depar~nt of ~he Navy must have full opportunity to participate in the d~velo~ent of propomal~ that may affect Depar~ent of the Navy inutallatioms. " MAY' 1.3 "' :'::-: 15: OG BAC:,H:AM DC. DO Pl:3 FINANCZ.YG JOZ.qT USE DEVE4OPHE~'r: at other public airports. I: t~ sponsored by a state or lo, al &gency and is paid for out o.~ operaLing funds cr with rmvenue income from.fees and rents. Grants-in-aid may be issued under the Airport' Improvement Pre, ram (AZP) on the same terms and mon~i:ioms as for other air- ports. Over 27 million dollars in AX? ~Ands have been granted for Jo.iht use development simee 1~82. ],.,:=s T~ma I'E,L~/"I''.~e~ 1982~.lgBT 233,290 F.i chirds-C~ baur overlay ru~wa7; CZT~ t~M,E: i ~yr. ~le Beec~ ! ,, ~ - , ii I 1962-1 ~J87 __ 1,912,9~0 i · , ~ 12:.S00 F'21 DOD FAA ...... ZFB - ~FI:i