Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 J.W. AIRPORT RPT 10-03-88OLD BUSINESS NO. 1 10-3-88 TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY P, ANAGER FROM: COHHUNITY DEVELOPHENT DEPARTHENT SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT: JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT (JWA) NOISE PROGRAH, AIRPORT SITE COALITION (ASC) AND COALITION FOR A RESPONSIBLE AIRPORT CJ~I IITTI~M IPDACl RECOI~ENDATI ON: ii i~ mil i -' Adopt Resolution No. 88-108, directing the City Manager to join CRAS and authorizing a $1,000 contribution to CRAS to aid in said opposition. DISCUSSION: JWA: Attached to this report is a copy of a letter staff sent to Airport ~ager George Rebella regarding the Phase 2 Access Plan for JWA. The letter- was sent in response to a letter Mr. Rebella sent to various agencies and organizations, requesting early input and comments on the Phase 2 Access Plan (copy of Mr. Rebella's letter is also attached). In addition to the early input, the City will have the opportunity to review and comment on the first draft staff report for the Phase 2 Access Plan before it goes before the County. Airport Commission. At the Council meeting of September 19th, Councilwomen Kennedy raised three (3) specific concerns that the City should address in comments' regarding the Access Plan, with these being' (1) Limit landings per hour for safety; (2) Quieter aircraft - take a position supporting quieter planes being used; (3) Curfew requirements holding airlines to specific time restri ctions. While staff's letter deals with these items in a general sense, we will comment on them specifically when we review the first draft for the Phase 2 Access Plan. As iterated in Mr. Rebella's letter, the schedule for the Phase 2 Access Plan anticipates that the first draft staff report would be available for review some time in mid October, 1988. Pursuant to Councilman Prescott's request, staff is following up on the lack of monitoring sites in the trtangle created by the I-5 Freeway, ILS and VOR approach routes. At the JWA Noise Abatement Committee's quarterly meeting held on September 13th, a video demonstration was shown by Mc Donnell Douglas highlighting a prototype jet engine which is 40+% more fuel efficient than engines currently in use, as well as supposedly quieter in overall operations. Introduction for commercial CJty Counctl Report J~IA Status Report O.ctober 3, [988 Page two use ts antlctpated..ln the early 1990's. ASC - A meettng was held on Saturday, October 1, 1988. The results of that meettng wtll be discussed in our next report. CRAS - Pursuant to Counctl directions, staff has prepared a resolution a-~-~ortzing membership in CRAS with a $1,000 annual membership fee. Stev& Rubtn Sent or Planner Christine A. Sh~ngleton ~ ' Dtrector of Community Development SR:CAS-ts Attachments' Copy of Phase 2 Access Plan letter Copy of George Rebella's letter Resolution No. 88-[08 for membership in CRAS Co.m munity Developmen~ Department .City of Tustin ; ...' . . " ' '... ~ · ~OeST~, m~" ' ' ' · . .. :. i'.'. ;. QR~JLA F_ KF=HH~Y, M~toc Pro Tern .. ' '~ Ri~MARD n EDGAR, Co~il M~mb~r · ..: . ~ I~! ~ Y, Council M~rnl~r ' .. ~ ~ PRF. S~oI'r, Council M~mb~r ' ' · . ... .. ·.. . .'.'."..: September 14, 1988 .. · · _ ~' .. . · . · .;: . ..... -. , : · · · -'i...i "'Mro:{ie0rge A, Rebella .. .- ';''.At rport Manager ' ' · .'. ~i.i.~ i: 4ohn. Wayne Atrport. · " .. 3~$! Alr~ay .Avenueo '." ...i "'.Costa Mesa, CA 9Z6Z6 .. · · ~:....~ '....,. · . ...' SUB4£~r:' .. PItA$£ Z ACCESS PLAN .... ~,. ...... : . ."~;~ '..... .. .....--...~. . - - .... · Dear Mr,'.' Rebella: --' · . "- '. '.' '""'" The City'of Tusttn appreciates your diligence in seeki'ng early input on the · ·AirPort's Phase 2 Commercial Airline Access Plan and Regulation (Access Plan) which ,'tSI anticipated 'to become 'effective on April 1, lggO. Although the City did not -. respond during your initial comment period, the City does offer these comments and .... will be reviewing and commenting on the Phase 2 Access Plan as it develops '= . ;~': .' .':.' :~. , ; ...... . - . . ' .. · .. _-¥ '.;i;.""A concern to 'Tustln is the issue of approach noise, an ls.s. ue generally · . "n~glected in Environmental Impact Report '(EIR) 508. The City considers this a --" reasonable and important concern, and considers this an appropriate occaston to ...... address the concern. The air transportation market has sufficient enough demand · . "and ~ insufficient · enough capacity, that concessions on noise abatement are -'..' possible." Since abatement actions pertain to marginal or, incremental effectsj fine · -. tuning of operations is of considerable importance. '...:.' .... ;:'The' following is a response to issues enumerated b¥,.~W^ st~ff in your · :-.. memorandu~ of ~uly $, 1988 and a final issue, approach noise': . . . ''~'. 1,' TERM: -' While it may be appropriate to look at a 15 year term, some :.. '... ~-~'~ter time frames need to be used for re-evaluation of effects during a .. . time period with rapid change in commercial aviation technology and the :.:.... .industry in general... · ... 2."..ADO, (Average o.ail¥., o.epartures_): Tustin has concerns about supply of ' e' . m ' ' service and allocation of' enplanements. (or passengers enplaning) to .... airlines using aircraft operable at quieter approach noise levels. .. · . . · 300'Centennial Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 Quieter departure planes may be noisier arrival planes. This is the case discUssed In EIR 508 wherein Boeing 767's are the apparent alrcraft of chotce because of their quieter departures. However, the 767's are nolsler on approach and extend nolse contours to the north (E[R page 4.~-83), Since the Phase 2 73ADD'for the year of 200~ envisions pr~mry reltance-on 767's (E~R page 4.~5-83), then allocations geared't~ard 767 usage are probably contrary to the best Interests In Tustln. This calls ~n~o question ~he adequacy or'the E~ ~n ~ha~ arrival/approach noise ~as · not dealt ~th except superficially, bu~ ~ould change s~gn~f~cantl~... Before. ~5 year A~ allocation tssues can be approprlatel~ addressed, the effects on approach notse levels resulting from the ADD related fleet mtx ~st be Investigated and considered, and any outstanding tssues ~st be resolved. · ADD authorizations are allocated to air carriers using aircraft models meeting maximum Single Event Noise Equivalent Level [SENEL) levels at three (3) locations: M:~, M6 and ~7 Criterion ~onl~orlng Stations. The loc~t~ons are sltghtly south of the Run~ay ~ Left - ~9 R~ght South Clear Zone at approxl~tely the ~ay Centerllne Extended at Nesa Avenue, the southwest Clear Zone corner near Bristol and Santa Aha Streets, and the southeast Clear Zone corner near Bristol and Btrch Streets, respectively (E[R Fig. 4.~5-~9a). Thus, ADD allocations syste~ttcally tgnore lssues related to approach noise. .. 3.HAP. CONSTR.AINTS.... .. .. (Hllllon. . Annual.. ..Passen~lers): Before addressing passenger counts, It ts crtttcal to address number of operations (etther a takeoff .. or a landtng) tn regard' to airport and extstlng or future land use compatibility. Number of operations will be a leading variable in determining aircraft noise profiles (or the geographic areas subject to a threshold noise level by different aircraft types). Another leading variable is fleet mix, i.e., the number of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 36 "new generation quiet aircraft" relative to the total -- fleet of aircraft operating at JWA, or preference toward either the Douglas DC-g/MD-80, with a larger departure profile and a smaller arrival profile, ~or the Boein(i 767, with a'smaller departure profile and a larger arrival profile. 'A Boeing 767 arriving with five (5) passengers should be nearly as noisy as one arriving with 130 passengers. In order to achieve higher airfield and terminal utilization and in order to promote land use co~atibility, it is recommended that JWA seek a criterion of maximum airliner capacity in determining their seat capacity allocation methodology. While this is a reiteration of existing practice, there is an inherent concern that compatibility in terms of number of operations will be secondary to level of service or MAP. Hr. G. Rebella Page three · · ...--." . landtng, fee rates. These rates mtght be according to method of tngresS. ; . ;':~ ...-~..- and egress (l.e., along the Very Hlgh Frequency Omnirange (VOR)/Locallzer .:..". ..... :.'.. Directional 'Atd (LDA) approach over the 55 Freeway), according to ''~'..'"- alrcraft notse category, according to ttme of day both tn terms of ': :'-: .... residential annoyance and'In terms of peak hour capacities, and posstbly ';''..'-according to some as yet undetermined measure of usage of alrcraft · :.:.~. "transponders versus att space· vector need for transponders which make .....~. '...'. al. rcraft vlslb]e to att trafftc control (^TC) radar. .: · . "~ .4". "ACCOHHODATIoN_ _ OF N£1~ ENTRANTS'. The prlme criterion for allocating ADDs ~ "':'.'....: "" :. !:~ .. tO new entrants lnto co.~mer~l~l service must be the operation of atrcraft · '-.:.' .. tn a. manner compatible to no, se sensitivity, both arrtvtng and '' departing. Other criteria such as atrcraft passenger configuration and '...... '- level of servtce are secondary.. Again, no, se sensitivity pertains to :... both approaches and departures. · ... 5, RON (Rema.tn. Oyer Nl.~lht): Since passenger demand patterns accent morntng ... '-'departures rather than late eventng departures and there ts demand for ".':'" late eventng arrivals, then 11mtttng RON atrcraft would' logically · Increase early morning fly-tns, elther wtth arrtvtng passenger flights or wtth empty atrcraft shuttling from other airports. :l:n that regard, a quleter solution Is to maximize RONs. However, the concern ts about evening and nlght tlme noise events (the Federal Avtatton Admtnlstr. atlon (FAA) deflnes night as the tlme between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.) · :..,. '.. associated wtth atrltnes arrtvlng late so as to meet demand for late '. evenlng arrivals and early morntng departures. A more direct method for avotdtng numerous late evenlng and night tlme approaches would be curfew '~i. adjustment In terms of decreasing eventng and nlght tlme arrivals unt11 ' zero arrtvals occur at the curfe~ time. ,..:". 6. PEAK HOUR RESTRZCT:I:ONS: If restrictions on departures are appropriate, . ~'...'..' then'"rest~lctlons'on arrtvals are also appropriate. The tssue of peak -."'i. · .. hour restriction centers about the chotce of' whether to saturate a · .. .' particular peak hour or to spread that· saturation over several hours. I~ould residents prefer one .continually nolsy hour or. several somewhat · ....' notsy hours? -.... · . . 7-8. ADHINISTRATION AND LEASES: No comment. . .. . An Important caveat Is that one method of 11mltlng operations Is to give preference to air carrters (airlines and commuter airlines) to the detriment of prtv&te .aircraft (elther the typlcal small stngle- or twin-engined aircraft or the corporate Jet). [f constraints are placed .solely on operations and tf HAP level of service Is a criterion, then eventually there w111 only be alt carrler traffic. Tusttn prefers a spectflc order of priorities for. determining constraints. The ftrst" . priority' ts to 11mtt notster att. carrler operations by 11mtttng AOOs (as. ts done). The second prlortty Is to 11mtt other operations, probably by TUST:[N SPEC]:FIC CONC£RNS: Tus'tln':'ls concerned with noise resulting from aircraft approaches to JWA. Approach noise has not been reasonably addressed In the EIR. Nor has there been adequate protection of the VOR/LDA approach which would *a]]ow diminution of approach nolse along the Instrument Landlng System (ILS) approach. .' Tusttn is also concerned about evening and night ti'me (after 10:00 p.m.) approaches. Slnce there is curfew, there will be a natural tendency to group arriving flights 'later in the 'evening (prior to curfew), whlch my.-. cause annoyance. , . . · . . · : . .. Sincerely, . ,- , Wt 1 liam A. Huston C1 ty Manager .... While Tusttn has voiced several Concerns, the City appreciates JWA .... staff .effort in seeking early input for the new Access Plan. Our mutual goal is that JWA · will be a good neighbor ably providing air transportation facilities for residents and businesses of Tustln and Orange County.. Please contact Bernard Chase with the City's-Community Development Oepartment.as the Oraft Access Plan comment period nears or should you have any questions. · O U 3151 AIRWAY A r~ /'Ol= JOHN WAYNE .IRPORT BUILDING K'101 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 GEORGE A. REBELLA AIRPORT MANAGER Ph. 714/755-6526 3uly 6, 1988 TO: ALL CURRENTLY OPERATING AIRLINES AT 3WA ALL AIRLINES ON THE JWA WAITING LIST ALL COMMUTER OPERATORS AT JWA ALL FIXED BASE OPERATORS AT 3WA UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION CITY OF NEHPORT BEACH SPON AND AIRPORT WORKING GROUP All Interested Parties: The County's current "Amended Commercial Airline Access Plan and Regulation" ("Access Plan") expires on March 31, lggo, as do all existing operating'agreements and leases between the County of Orange. and currently operating commercial air carriers and commuter operators. By the terms of resolutions of the Board of Supervisors adopted in February, 1985, approving the 3ohn Wayne Airport Master Plan and related environmental and other documentation, the airport i.s currently operating in "Phase I" of the Master Plan Project. "Phase 2" is anticipated to begin on April l, 1990, after the opening of the new commercial air carrier terminal. For reasons discussed below, County staff believes that it is appropriate at this time to begin the process of formulating an Access Plan which will be implemented and effective for Phase 2 of the Master Plan project ("Phase 2 Access Plan"). By beginning the process now, staff believes that there will be sufficient time to ensure that all interested parties will have an adequate opportunity to consider and comment upon the formulation of Phase 2 Access Plan. By commencing the process at this time, staff also anticipates that the final form of the Phase 2 Access Plan can be determined well in advance of its implementation so that the affected parties will have more than adequate lead time to make any necessary adjustments to their operations and schedules at the airport. Finally, issues related to the formulation of the Phase 2 Access Plan may affect issues relating to the allocation of terminal facilities among the commercial operators at JWA, and prompt consideration of Phase 2 Access Plan issues should facilitate resolution of those related questions. County staff presently intends to implement the following general procedure with' respect to the formulation of the Phase 2 Access Plan' County staff will. Access Plan 3ul.y 6, lg88 Page 2 first prepare and circulate for comments a "staff'report" addressing the significant issues relating to the formulation of the access plan. After allowing a reasonable period of time to-receive written comments from interested parties, staff will thel~ prepare a second staff report summarizing and addressing issues raised by the comments. The second staff report would be placed 'on the Airport Commission's agenda. Airport staff would then use the guidance of the Airport Commission to decide what additional analysis or studies shoUld be performed prior to presenting a proposed final Phase 2 Access Plan to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration and adoption. The staff's ob~ective would be to complete the formulation process not later than April 1, 1989, one year before implementation of Phase 2 Access Plan. ........ Before preparation of the first staff report, however, staff wishes to solicit input and comments from interested parties on issues which they believe should be addressed in the first staff report. In effect, we are soliciting your assistance in developing an "agenda" for this process and will accept your written comments through the close of business on August 19, 1988. The first staff report will be circulated between 30 and 60 days thereafter. The staff has identified a number of issues which it believes must be analyzed and addressed in'the fi.rst staff report. Those issues include: 1. Term of the Phase 2 Access Plan. The present inclination of staff is to attempt to develop an access plan which woul'd be effective throughout Phase-2 of the Master Plan Pro~)ect (April l, lg90- March 31, 2005). Based upon input received from interested parties, however, staff would consider evaluating a possible Phase 2 Access Plan with a shorter term if there were substantial justification for that structure. 2. ADD A1 location. By the terms of the current Access Plan and other related documentation, all presently allocated "privileges" to the operation of any specific number of ADDs will expire on March 31, lggo. Issues relating to the allocation of ADDs for Phase 2 are lik, ely to be controversial, and are probably the most significant issues to be addressed in the formulation of the Phase 2 Access Plan. 3. HAP Constraints. In Phase 2, the County's MAP limitation on ,1HA operations increases. from 4.75 MAP to 8.4 MAP. Staff intends to consider whether or not Access Plan ,.luly 6, 1988 Page 3 the seat capacity allocation methodology contained in the current Access Plan is an appropriate means to continue control over HAP levels, or whether a modified or different system of regulating HAP levels would be more effective or appropriate. 4. Accommodation of New I~ntrant~ This is an issue which relates to the allocation of ADDS, and is influenced by County's present desire to implement a 15 year Phase 2 Access Plan. Staff believes that some means to allocate ADDs to potential new entrants needs to be identified, and staff intends to consider alternative means to accomplish that objective. 5. RON Issues. The staff intends to discuss whether or not a RON allocation process will be necessary in Phase 2 and, if so, whether the limitations on facilities which will still exist after completion of the new terminal facilities will require allocation of RON space based upon aircraft size. 6. Peak Hour Restrictions. The present "peak hour" restrictions limiting the maximum number of departures to 12 per hour was a mitigation measure of EIR 508 and was initially applicable only to Phase 1 of the Master Plan Project. However, staff intends to review and consider whether or not a continuation of some form of peak hour departure or arrival restrictions Will be necessary or appropriate during Phase 2. 7. Administration of the Access Plan. Based upon its experience in administering the Phase 1 Access Plan, staff intends to review and consider issues relating to administration of the Phase 2 Access Plan. Specific suggestions with respect to this topic are of particular interest to the staff at this time. 8. Relatlonshto to Lease and Ooerattng Aqreement Provisions and Structure. Staff also intends to consider issues relating to ADD allocations as they would affect or influence the provisions or structure of Access Plan 3uly 6 Page 4 Phase 2 leas.e or operating agreements ~tth commercial carriers, as well as the possible effect of those allocations on the allocation of terminal space among tenant carriers during Phase 2. I anticipate an open dialogue during this process which, I hope will produce, an effective regulation serving the best interests of the County, its citizens, the commercial air carriers and the air traveling public using 3NA. Ne look forward to receiving your suggestions regarding the issues which staff has already identified for consideration, as well andy other issues or problems. which you feel should be addressed by staff as the Phase 2 Access Plan is formulated. Very truly yours, George A. Rebel la Airport Manager GAR: km 0123K 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88-108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA -AUTHORIZING MEMBERSHIP IN THE COALITION FOR A RESPONSIBLE AIRPORT SOLUTION (CRAS) The City Council of the City of Tustln does hereby ~esolve as follows' ' I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the City Council adopted Resolution No. 88-65, expressing its opposition to any form of joint or full commercial use of MCAS E1 Toro. B. That CRAS is an organization committed to opposing joint or full commercial use of MCAS E1 Toro. II. For the reasons stated in Resolution No. 88-65, incorporated herein by reference, the City Council hereby directs the City Manager to join the Coalition for a Responsble Airport Solution and appoint an appropriate member of City staff to act as the City's representative to the Coal i ti on. III. The City Council also hereby authorizes the City Manager to allocate a financial contribution of $1,000 on an annual basis to the Coalition to be used in a county wide campaign to educate neighboring cities, residents and business organizations on the incomparability of commercial air service at MCAS E1 Toro with the quality of life in Orange County. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the day of , 1988. · , Ronaid B. Hoesterey Mayor Mary E. Wynn City Clerk