Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 JWA STATUS RPT 06-06-88DATE: OUNE 6, 1988 OLD BUSINESS NO. 1 6-6-88 Inter- Com TO: FROM: S U BJ ECT: WILLIAJq A. HUSTO#, CITY IqANAGER COlqMU#ITY DEYELOPIqEBT DEPARTlqENT AIRPORT STATUS REPORT - dNA, JOINT USE/EL TORO, AIRPORT SITE COALITION. RECOI~IENDATION Receive and file. DISCUSSION Beginning with this report, staff will provide a status report not only on the JWA Noise Monitoring Program, but also regarding the activities of the "Coalition for a Responsible Airport Solution {CRAS)" which is focused on opposing joint use of MCAS E1 Toro and the Airport Site Coalition (ASC) whose program is to find a solution by consensus for an additional airport site' or sites to service Orange County. The CRAS and ASC meet on a regular monthly basis, status reports on these two organizations will follow those meetings. The status report on the JWA program will continue in its bi-monthly format. JWA - Airport staff is continuing to try to resolve "glitches" in the new ~6~tware packages that are to be used in the noise monitoring program. B & K, the supplier of the system, is assisting JWA in this effort. A start d~te has not been set. The Board of Supervisors at their regular meeting of May 24, 1988, unanimously approved the necessary procedures to permanently install the LDA navigational device which will reestablish the "old VOR" approach. The LDA is expected to be operational in September of this year. CRAS - Briefly, this organization is made up of interested cities, homeowner's associations and private individuals specifically opposing the joint use of MCAS E1 Toro by commercial aircraft. Attached for the Council's information is a model resolution for adoption by members of CRAS, prepared by the City of Irvine. The City of Irvine is spearheading this group and is underwriting its finances to get things going. Our staff has attended one meeting to date (May g, 1988) for the purpose of monitoring actions*and events, the City of Tustin has not expressed it's official support for CRAS in any form to date. Planning Commission Report Alrport Status Report June 6, lg88 Page two At the May 9th meeting, Colonel Wagner of MCAS E1 Toro gave a slide presentation on the current use of the E1 Toro facility and demonstrated the facts which make MCAS E1 Toro an improper site for commercial aircraft {this presentation can be shown to our City if requested). Some of these facts include: The presence of Saddleback Mountain would interfere with FAA criteria for a 50:1 glide path for commercial aircraft takeoffs. ° During military maneuvers, airspace could not be shared. ° There would be a loss of operational security. It was also indicated that one of the likely takeoff patterns would be over the City of Tustin, which would likely exacerbate existing noise problems in addition to possibly conflicting with landing patterns for JWA. An FAA study regarding the joint use of MCAS E1 Toro has been completed; while staff is expecting to receive a copy shortly, preliminary reports concerning this study indicate that joint use is technically feasible, more information will be forthcoming. Also expected in the near future is a "position paper" for CRAS, this and any other additional information on CRAS activities will be provided to the Council following its June meeting, or sooner as it becomes available. ASC - On Saturday, May 21, 1988, staff attended the first meeting for ASC. This l~-a non-profit organization conducting a study to find an additional airport site (or sites) to serve Orange County's growing air transportation needs. The study, called the Airport Site Consensus Program, is partly funded by the FAA, and is coordinated through SCAG (staff has also learned that the City of Newport Beach, which supports joint use of MCAS E1 Toro, has contributed $50,000 to ASC). Participation in ASC is open to any interested citizen, business, H.O.A. or public agency or official. Attached to this report {labeled Attachments I-VII) is a series of pamphlets which elaborate and expand on this brief description of ASC and its purpose. Again, Saturday's meeting was an introductory session; however, the attendees were broken down into groups of 10 or so people to discuss two issues relating to airports: noise and ground transportation/traffic {see Attachment VIII). Each group presented a summary of their discussion. This was merely an introductory exercise, and no formal consensus was established at that time. Two additional items from ASC are attached for Council information: an Airport Site Reference Map showing existing and previously studied facilities/locations (Attachment IX) and a publication from Airport Working Group of Orange County, Corn munity Developmem Depar~mem ~ Planning Commission Report Alrport Status Report June 6, 1988 Page three Inc. (AWG, another local group - Attachment X). The next ASC meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 22, 1988 from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m. at the Flour Corp. building adjacent to Jamboree and the 1-405 Freeway. Senior Planner Christine A. Shingleto~ Director of Community t)evelopment SR:CAS:ts Attachments: Model Resolution (CRAS) Attachments I-X Corn reunify Development Department SAMPLE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the is vitally concerned with preserving the quality of life for its (members/citizens); and WHEREAS, the has an important responsibility . . to work on behalf of i~s (members/citizens) to promote quali=¥ 9f life and guard agaanst any activities or actions that might jeopardize the quality of life in (city/area); and .. WHEREAS, the Marine Corp Air Station (MCAS) E1 Toro is - surrounded by residential communities; and WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other orga~i~apions have studied or proposed stud%es examining feasaballty If pprmitting commercaal;~ non-military aircraft at MCAS E1 Toro, ana ~ WHEREAS, any form of commercial use, including non-military cargo aircraft a~ MCAS E1 Toro, would seriously deg~.ade the quality of life in the entare Saddleback ValleY.regaon, creating unmanageable levels of automobile traff%c, an increase in air polluti?n, unsaf? crowding of airspace an the Orange County area, and an increase an aircraft noise; and WHEREAS, MCAS E1 Tor° is a vitall~ important and strategically-located military air base; and WHEREAS, commercial flights at MCAS E1 Toro would be incompatible with the mission of the United States Marine Corps (USMC); AND . WHEREAS, the USMC has consistently and strenuously opposed any form for commercial air service at MCAS E1 Toro. NOW,. THEREFORE, the RESOLVE as follows: does HEREBY ~ That the expresses its strong opposition to any form of joint or full commercial use of MCAS E1 Toro, and hereby directs its (board/city council) to join the (Coalition For a Responsible Airport Solution) and appoint a membe~ of the board to act as its representative to the coalition; ~. That the is authorized to allocate of a financial contribution of to the coalition to be used in a countywide campaign to educate neighbor~n~ ~ities, residepts, and business organizations on the incompatibility of commercial air service at MCAS E1 Toro with~ ,the quality of life in Orange County. RESOLVED ON THIS DAY OF , 1988, BY: Please direct copies of adopted resolutions to: Nancy Dolan, Adler-Droz, 2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 290, Irvine, California 92715 ATT \CHMENT I Solutions Through Consensus Building Program Focus on Orange County Those Affected Will Make the Decisions Orange County has an Unprecedented Opportunity Through Consensus Building ~°articipants Will Set the Rules The Airport Site Coalition (ASC), a non-profit corporation, is conducting a study'to find an additional airport site (or sites) to serve Orange County's growing air transportation needs. The study, called the Airport Site Consensus Program, is partly funded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Program will be coordinated through the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The ASC approach to the study is based on the conviction, that the best solutions to the air tranportation issue come from those people who will need to live with the consequences of the study outcome. Through the Program, ASC offers an unprecedented oppor- tunity to Orange County dtizens, businesses and public officials as well as those in surrounding areas to join in a process of open communication leading to effective consensus building. Begin- ning from a site neutral position, the consensus process offers a forum wherein participants may express their diverse inter- ests, share community values, evaluate technical considera- tions and ultimately reach decisions that have their support and confidence. ASC will initiate the consensus process and will provide con- tinuing financial, technical and administrative support. Con- sensus participants will identify a consensus team, establish operating procedures, and develop evaluation criteria to be used throughout the concensus process. 1 Part 1: Air Transportation Study Consensus Requires Negotiations to Reach Reasonable Agreement Consensus will be Initiated by the ASC A Workable Solution is Essential ~ Results will be Presented to the Public The Orange County portion of the Program will take place over a 20-month period and will be funded partially by Federal grant and partially by contributions raised by the ASC from other public and private sources. Consensus is reasonable agreement and support for a position or conclusion. Consensus occurs when most of the points of contention are reconciled to a degree acceptable to par- ticipants in the process. Consensus consists of building on a series of consensus "plateaus" at important points throughout the study, each re~ulting from negotiations and compromises by participants. The consensus process will be initiated by ASC, but will operate by rules established by the consensus team as it fm-,-~. Each team meeting will be conducted by a facilitator to assist in bringing each point of consensus to a reasonable point of closure. Providing additional airport capacity is a highly sensitive issue and has serious implications for the people in Orange County. ASC recognizes that, while traditional approaches to solving the airport capacity shortfall have not been successful, a work- able solution is nonetheless essential. ASC believes that the best answer to the airport issue comes from those people who will live with the consequences of the study outcome. Throughout the process ASC, in coordination with the consen- sus team, will publish key decisions. When the consensus team prepares its ultimate decisions, public comments w/ll be solicited by ASC and its technical staff. 2 Part 1: Air Transportation Study ATT ';HMENT II Air Transportation Participants Study ASC Members are Committed to Orange County Orang~ County Aviation Council Orange County Chamber of Commerce Industrial League of Orange County Airport Working Group of Orange County The ASC was focaxed in 1986 by members of four existing or- ganizatious: the Airport Working Group of Orange County, the Industrial League 9f Orange County, the Orange County Avia- tion Council, and the Orange County Chamber of Commerce. ASC has been selected by the Orange County Board of Super- visors to conduct an airport site selection study for Orange County. It will manage the Orange County study. The Co,,nq~l (fol'fllerly the Community Airport Council) is a non-profit organi~,ation representing more than one hundred business and professional firm.~ with close ties to aviation inter- ests in Orange County. The Council was responsible for initiat- ing the process that led to formation of ASC and is interested in the future of both commercial and general aviation. The Chamber is a non-profit private sector corporation estab- lished in 1912, representing 1700 business, industry and profes- sional members employing more than 250,000 persons. It is dedicated to the economic prosperity of the entire County. The Industrial League of. Orange County is a non-profit as- sociation with a membership of 800 companies employing over 130,000 persons in Orange County. It is interested in the in- dustrial and commercial health and well-being of the County. The Airport Working Group is a private non-profit corporation with a membership of 1300 families and businesses in Orange County. It is interested in reconciling the demands for air traVel with community and environmental concerns. 1 Pan 2: Airport Site Coalition Partidpants come from Diverse Backgrounds Varied Governmental Interests will be Included Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Southern California Association of Governments (SC_AG) County of Orange Cities The Counties of Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego Participants include any individual, group, agency, association or jurisdiction interested in and committed to finding an answer to satisfying the air transportation needs for Orange County. FAA is the primary source of funds for the Program. A grant application was filed in the amount of $378,640 of which $150,000 is ~mded through 1988. Grant funds come from the Airport and Airways Trust Fund, hence no general tax proceeds are involved. SCAG is the recipient and manager of the FAA grant for the Airport Site Consensus Program for Orange County. The County of Orange is fulfilling an obligation expressed in the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement, which was filed with the U.S. District Court on December 13, 1985. The Agreement authorized a third party organization to seek fund- ing for airport site studies leading to further air transportation capacity in the areas serving Orange County. The County selected the Airport Site Coalition to fulfill this obligation. Ail cities and communities located within Orange County will be invited to participate in the study. Cities outside the Coun- ty that would be directly affected by potential sites will also have an opportunity to participate. All counties affected by potential sites to serve Orange Coun- ty will be invited to participate in the consensus building process. 2 Part 2: Airport Site Coalition United States Department of Defense Orange County Airport Conunission Solid Technical Support is Essential Military facilities such as MCS Camp Pendleton,. MCAS El Toro, and AFRC Los Alamitos and potentially others will no doubt be included in the study. The Department of Defense will be invited to actively participate in the consensus process and may provide technical data. The Airport Commission is appointed by the Board of Super- visors to provide policy advice On aviation related matters of interest to the County, particularly John Wayne Airport. Technical consultants comprised of planning, engineering and traffic ~ms will conduct studies, and provide continuing tech- nical support to the consensus process. · The Planning Center: responsible for conducting the consensus process and mana~ng other technical subconsultants. · Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton: responsible for airport planning and aviation systems technical analysis. · DK, gAssociate~: responsible for ground transportation analysis related to airport sites under consideration. · SCAG and Inter-CountyAirportAuthority (ICA.A): responsible for providing special subject data and analysis. Part ~ Airport Site Coalition ATTACHMENT III Site Coalition The Coalition Seeks Answers to Orange County Air Transportation Needs The Airport Site COalition Provides the M_~__ns for Building Consensus Among Orange County Residents The Airport Site Coalition (ASC) is comprised of Orange County residents committed to finding an answer to the air tran.~portation need for Orange County. The Coalition is com- mitted to the consensus process, which is founded on the prin- ciple that ASC is site neutral and conclusion-flexible. The Coalition's objective is an achievable air transportation solu- tion for Orange County and, as such, has no preference to a site or combination air/ground transportation scenario. ASC believes in public and private partnership working as a team. It understands the profound political and technical com- ponents and demands of this undertaking; and, is willing to ex- plore untried site alternatives and new technologies. The principal role of ASC is to ensure that consensus building occurs, and has the resources to keep moving ahead. In this role, ASC will: · bring together public/private interests within a productive environment; · assist in representing Orange County's interests in the airport site study; · insure funding for the consensus process from public and private sectors including FAA, citizens and businesses; · stimulate and maintain positive consensus action; · assist in the functional aspects of the consensus process by organizing meetings, facilities, and keeping the public informed regarding significant progress in the consensus process. · manage the work of The Planning Center, Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton and DKS, Associates. 1 Part 3: Quick Facts A Historical Profile Traces the Airport Site Coalition Evolution 1985: John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement November 14, 1986: Memorandum of Agreement Officially Forming the ASC ASC Incorporation . Grant Application Airport Commission Approval Orange County Board of Supervisors selection of ASC The John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement was signed by the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, the Airport Working Group, the organization of Stop Polluting Our New- port, FAA and various airlines in August 1985 (filed by the U.S. District Court in December, 1985). Through the Agreement, JohnWayne Airport capacity is limited to 4.75 Million Annual Passengers through March 31, 1990 and 8.4 Million Annual Passengers through December 31, 2005. The number of Max- imum Average Daily Departures was also limited by the Agree- mem. As part of the Setflement~ the County of Orange agreed to promote FAA funding of legitimate groups seeking to develop an additional airport. A Coalition Memorandum of Agreement was signed between the Airport Working Group of Orange County, the Industrial League of Orange County, the Orange County Aviation Coun- cil and the Orange County Chamber of Commerce. Airport Site Coalition incorporated with the specific purpose of locating and evaluating potential sites for a new public air- port to serve Orange County and to recommend a site to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. ASC engaged The Planning Center to prepare its proposa! to the County of Orange for a FAA Grant application. The Coun- ty of Orange was already considering an alternative application submitted by the Inter-County Airport Authority (ICAA). ASC submitted a proposal to the Orange County Airport Com- mission, who subsequently recommended approval of the Grant. A policy decision was approved by the County of Orange in which the ASC proposal was selected and the County agreed to file a Grant Application with the FAA. Under this applica- tion, the County would administer the Federal Grant to ASC. 2 Part 3: Quick Faces March 11, 1987: Resolution Number 87-313 September 11, 1987: County Gt~nt Application Filed with FAA January, 1988: An integrated approach Outlining the Work Program March, 1988: Revised FAA Grant Submitted The Federal Aviation Administration funds the Airport Site Consensus The County of' Orange fommlly selected ASC as its ,repre- sentative to search for an additional airport site to meet the long range air tran.qportation needs of Orange County. A Grant Application was filed with FAA by the County of Orange. ASC formally agreed to proceed in an integrated appi~oach, and join forces in the Airport Site Consensus Program with SCAG. At the same time;, ASC concurred with the plan that ICAA would perform certain technical tasks. An info~mal agreement between SCAG, the FAA and the tech- nical consultants integrating the ASC approach, and coordinat- ing the work programs of each of the agencies. The Southern California Association of Governments resub- mitted its Grant Application with the ASC, ICAA and other technical staff as participants. ASC and SCAG worked jointly to revise the work program that was included in the revised Grant Application. The ASC requested specific funding for its role in the study. : SCAG advises ASC that funding has been approved by FAA and that the initial $150,000 covering Phase IA workscope will be forthcoming within approximately 30-days, Part 3: Quick Facts ATT .CHMENT IV Selected Illustrations of the Air Transportation Problem The need to expand airport capacity has been called the "greatest challenge facing the Nation's aviation system". Despite this pressing need, few areas of the country are active- ly considering the building of new air carrier airports or the ad- dition of new runways at existing airports. California leads the nation in aviation-related economic and flight activity with seven of the twenty busiest airports in the na- tion; over 100 million passengers annually; almost 16 percent of the nation's general aviation based aircraft. The air corridor between Los Angeles and San Francisco is the busiest air corridor in the entire world. 59% of Orange County air passengers fly out of airports out- side of the County. For example, 4,711,000 Orange County air passengers used Los Angeles International Airport while 4,059,000 passengers used John Wayne Airport. The John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement between the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach and the Airport Working Group stipulates that a maximum of 8.4 million air passengers per year may use John Wayne Airport annually by the year 2005. It is projected that as many as 22 million resi- dents will want to use John Wayne Airport annually by the same year. Even with current efforts, the airport expansion and planning for specific sites for new airports lags behind the need. Nation- wide, passenger enplanements will increase by 85 percent by the end of this century. Operations by air carriers will rise by 39 percent during the same period. 1 Part 4: Illustrations of the Problem While aviation activity has exhibited a significant growth, the number of public use airports has actually decreased by 26, from 309 to 283 over the past ten years. Airports are becom- ing endangered transportation facilities. Demands on our air transportation system are increasing at a rate that may soon cause a dangerous and frustrating aeronautical ~ddlock. In recent years, public concern about the safety of our airways has increased dramatically. As a result, heavy media and politi- cal attention has focused on the quaiityof our air traf~c con- trol system and our airport infrastructure. Carriers have invested billions of dollars for hundreds of new (and quieter) aircraft. The air traffic control system is being completely overhauled and modernized through the National Airspace System Plan-a $12 billion investment already well underway. Note: Much of this information was taken from California Aviation Into the Future prepared by the California Commission on Aviation and Air- ports (January 31, 1988). 2 Part 4: Illustrations of the Problem AT , ACHMENT V BUDGET SUMMARY' Airport Site Consensus Program for Orange County 1988 and 1989 Task Description Total Total Total Projected FAA Shortfall Cost ($) Funding ($) ($) Consensus Process This complex process brings together technical Information, corn-_ 200,000.00 110,491.00 89,509.00 munity values and political considerations Into an ongoing and open communication program. Existing conditions and evalua- tion criteria will be determined and several altemative airport sites and service levels will be examined. Communications Communications materials include press releases, continual 63,550.00 32,500.00 31,050.00 m~bllc information updates on the consensus process, special an- ~ncements, printing, assembling and mailing. Technical Technical efforts will be required for assembling data on existing 217,010.00 195,626.00 21,384.00 airport conditions in the Southem Callfomia region, and re- searching new technology in the airport field. This intensive ef- fort will also require analysis of several airport site options including alternate locations, varied passenger and freight capacity, diverse aircraft options, ground access.and other con- siderations. ASC Operations This part of the study requires continual management of ASC 69,980.00 39,987.00 29,993.00 operations such as regular meetings and materials, rental of equipment and facilities, communications and fundraising ac- tivities, public announcements and coordination with the consen- sus process. Contingency The contingency fund is to provide expected, but unallocated 110,100.00 None 110,100.00 funds. The expected tasks for which the contingency fund would be assigned include consensus newsletters, public response to political controversy, tasks created by the consensus team, ex- - '~sion of technical studies, and responding to consensus ac- ,es and needs. Total $660,640.00 $378,604.00 $282,036.00 Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. ATTACHMENT Vi Airport Site Consensus Team PRINCIPLES FOR PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT May 21, 1988 First Draft Participation in the Aixport Site Consensus Team will represent a significant contribution to the public interest in Orange County, adjacent areas and the region. It will also represent a substantial personal commi;,~,ent by those who take part. No one said this would be easy. As with any significant human endeavor, attitude is everything. This Program will be greatly enhanced by a positive attitude. The following principles are intended to help participants in the Ahport Site Consensus Program for Orange County accomplish the work to be done. Taken together, they can be thought of as a statement of philosophy or "mind set" about the entire program and each person's contribution to it. Frequent reference to these principles will help us to participate effectively in this challenging and worthwhile effort. l.We each need to visualize ourselves as part of the solution, not part of the problem. 2.While the problem is certainly difficult, there is no reason we can't create a solution if we choose to. 3.Since it is a very important as well as complex subject, we can expect to get emotional about it f~-om time to time. That's OK. We just have to calm down, regain our objectivity and get on with the job. 4.Everything we do or say should be intended to lead toward consensus. 5.In reviewing drafts of consensus materials, we should seek constantly to make them clearer, more accurate and complete. Making suggestions in writing directly on the draft is the best way to accomplish this. 6.Our willingness and ability to listen sensitively to each other without interruption will enable us to take maximum advantage of the talent and knowledge among the Consensus Team members. 7. No matter how much we may disagree, all participants have a right to their view. They alsb have a right to ch.ange their mind. 8.We need to view this Program as an opportunity to be for something useful to happen, not just against something undesirable. 9.We need to be thorough, but not exhaustive (nor exhausting) in exploring the different points of view on this subject. 10.We need to recognize that each point on which consensus is not reached will require more time and effoxt because the issue must ultimately be dealt with. 11. Both the process and the products of the Program will change, perhaps in unpredictable ways, as we proceed. That is OK as long as we keep the objectives in mind. 12.We already know a lot about the problem and how to deal with it. We also have a need to learn more. 13.If we reject an idea it should be because it really isn't useful in finding a solution, not because we don't happen to. like it. 14.This is not a forum for speeches or filibusters. It is a working program to come up with a solution to a very challenging problem. So making points quickly and clearly will help a lot. 16.Every idea that is put forward will have to be dealt with: it won't go away. At the same time, failure to put forth an idea that may be valuable will detract from achieving the main objeetive. 17.This is an oppornmity to demonstrate again the amazing ability of individuals working together to rise to a challenge when called upon to do so. ATTACHMENT VII Airport Site Consensus Program PREVIOUS AVIATION STUDIES RELATED TO ORANGE COUNTY May 21, 1988 Report Title, Date And Preparer Draft Environmental Tmnact Report 508 and Preliminary_ Draft Environmental Impact Stut~nent for John Wayne Airport Master Plan and Santa Ana Heights Land Use Com- ~ Volumes 1 and 2, July 6, 1984. CI-I2M Hill. ~. Final Environmental Impact Report 508 and Final Environmental Impact Statement for John Wa_vne Airpo_ n Master Plan and Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility_ P_rogra~, Volumes 1 and 2, February 1985. CH2M Hill. 3. Airpo_ n Mamer Plan, February 1985. CH2M Hill. 4. Orange County. Transportation Plan, JulY 1982. Blue Ribbon Regional Airport Ad- visol7 Committee. Southern California Aviation System Study: Supplemental Technical Report (includ- ing..~ll~Ildi/~, June 1982. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 6. Southem California Aviation System Study: Supplemental Draft Environmental Im- llal;l_]~, June 1982. SCAG. 7. General Aviation Aixpon Site Selection Study, Volume 1 (Findings) and Volume 2 (Technical Evaluation), December 1981. CH2M Hill. 8. Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Study. MCAS E1 Toro, Santa Aha, Califomia, March 1981. PRC Speas Association. 9. Aim_on Master Plar~ANCLUC Plan for John Wayne Aixport. Orange County_, (Volumes I through IV, February 18, 1981. CPE Engineers (VTN Consolidated, Inc.). 10. ,Mrspace Assessments. Airport Facilities. Related Aviation Subjects; Appendix I, Sep- tember 1980. SCAG. 11. Southern Califomia Aviation System Study: Technical Report, July 1980. SCAG. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Revisions to Regional Airport System Plan. Air Caxier and Military Forecasts, July 1979. PRC Engineering (R. Dixon Speas, Associates). Draft Environmental Impact R _epon 102 for Orange Coun_ty A p. ort Alternative Fu- tures, March 1978. Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall (DM.IM). Orange County_ General Aviation Needs andAirpo_ n Site Review, January 1978. Coun- ty of Orange General Services Agency, Airports Division. Southern California Regional Aviation System. prepared for SCAG, July 1972. System Development Corporation/r~illlam L. Pereira & Associates. Air Transpo_ nation Master Plan. Phase H, Octobe~ 15, 1970. The Ralph M. Parsons Company Pha.s~ I Master Plan of Air Transportation for Orange County_. California, luly 1968. William L. Pereira & Associates. ATTACHMENT VIII ~IRPORT SITE CONSENSUS TE~.S -ZSSUES WORKSHOP - I~Y 2L, L988 PURPOSES~ 1) Think about airport choices and their implications. 2) Experience the consensus process by improving a draft report. SUBJECT: Implications of two generalized alternatives to expanding air transportation capacity. No specific site or sites are intended. ~' ASSIGNMENT: BACKGROURD: Expand, modify or delete implications from the list of issue topics below. Think about the implications of expanding air transportation capacity with one large airport as contrasted with two or more smaller airports. Assume that all areas for site consideration include some urbanization served by an existing, but not fully improved freeway/highway system. Assume some hilly terrain and sensitive habitat nearby. Two of the several ways to expand air transport- ation capacity to serve Orange County include: 1) Adding is single new "International Airport"; 2) Adding two or more smaller airports. Each choice raises issues to a different degree. ISSUES: The following two issues represent a "first draft": 1. NOISE intensive noise impacts over a large area lation in a single locale Multiple Airports -- less intensive noise impacts over a greater or lesser aggregate area (depending on number and size of sites) affecting population in more than one locale. 2. GROUND TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ~ingle Air~ort - major access requirements with substantial impacts on the street and highway system in a single locale. ~ultiple Airports - lesser individual access requirements with smaller impacts in each locale, but perhaps greater overall improvement requirements. 3..OTHERS Consider-the any of the following issue areas and others you believe are important and write similar statements for them: AIR QUALITY; AIRSPACE; COST; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; LAND USE; RESPONSIVENESS TO DEMAND; OPEN SPACE; PUBLIC FACILITIES. I- Z LU ATTACHMENT X FINALLY -- A REAL SO'LUTION Through all the events of the last five years- the litigation, legislation, and settlement negotiations determining the fate of John Wayne Airport--The Airport Working Group has never departed from its primary goal of locating and implementing an additional airport for Orange County to ease the burden of demand off JWA. Now, our goal has taken a giant step toward realization. In April 1988, The Federal Aviation Administration, acting through the Southern California Association of Governments, gave the Airport Site Coalition, of which the Airport Working Group is one of four principals, a grant of $150,000 for the current fiscal year, and assurances of an additional ~'~28,000 for the next fiscal year. The nt is for a twenty-month study, ,. ,eluding technical feasibility analyses and, more importantly, the develop- ment of County-wide accommodation on the location of an additional site. Of course, there have been site location studies before. This one, however, is very different, for at least three reasons. First, this study is founded on the concept of consensus- building. The consensus-building pro- cess affords all Orange County citi- zens groups, agencies, businesses, and public officials the opportunity to participate in and directly influence decision-making about the location of an additional airport site. Consensus is reasonable agree- ment and support for a particular con- clusion. It occurs when citizens from all parts of the county and represent- ing all possible poir~ts of view come together in a carefully structured forum. There, they work through a series of steps based on evaluation of technicial data, community concerns, ",~d understanding of each others ws, until the points of contention _. e reconciled to a degree acceptable to all the participants in the process. The consensus-process is not merely advisory. Participants will be called upon to make the actual decisions at each step of the process, and there will be no veto on the decisions they make. The Consensus process has been used with great success in other planning contexts and has won the confidence of all federal, state, and local agencies involved in the study. A second factor that makes this study different from all previous studies is the commitment of the FAA to its success. The FAA is determined to solve the airport capacity problem in Southern California and was willing to commit extensive funding to a pioneering effort because it believes in our potential for success. Finally, unlike previous studies, AWG, as part of the Airpurt Site Coalition shares responsibility for its planning and direction. This is not simply another study ordained by the county and directed by officials foreign to our community and its problems. Our views, like those of all participants, will be listened to and accommodated. Arriving at this point has itself been a complex process. First the AWG shared responsibility with the City of Newport Beach for negotiating the JWA settlement agreement. A primary facet of that agreement is the County's sponsorship of funding for a legiti- mate airport site study. ISPRING REPORT - 1988i Next, the AWG helped broaden the base for such a study by seeking out County-wide support. We joined with other groups which had previously been on opposite sides of the John Wayne Airport controversy but which shared mutual concerns about the future of Orange County air trans- portation. The result is the Airport Site Coalition composed of Th~ AWG, the Industrial League of Orange County, The Orange County Chamber of Commerce, and the Orange County Airport Council. Even after Orange County sponsor- ship had been obtained, FAA approval had to be won, and SCAG and other region-wide groups integrated into a study of Region-wide scope and concern. All of this has been accom- plished since the JWA Settlement was signed. The AWG is now ~bout to tackle its biggest challenge. The first meeting of all parties to the concensus- process will be Sat. morning, May 21, from 9 a.m. to I p.m., lunch included, at Fluor Corporation Headquarters on Michelson and the San Diego Freeway in Irvine. Any .of our members who wish to attend should RSVP to The Planning Center at (714) 851-9444. It will be a lengthy, contentious, but above all, exciting and constructive process. We have no doubt that, with your continued support we can face this challenge as we have all 'the others and finally achieve a real solution which reconciles the prob- lems of our community with the needs of Orange County for additional air transportation. WHAT A "NUISANCE!!" For the fourth time in five years, legislation was introduced in Sacra- mento to take away the right to use the courts from citizens who live around airports. This time the legislation was not Orange-County created or sponsored. AB4014 originated in the California Commission on Aviation and Airports, and was carried by Assemblyman Richard Mountjoy. The proposal was even worse than those which came before. It would have completely eliminated the right of all residents living outside the noise impact area continued on page two PRESIDENT'S MESSAG Dear Member: The AWG is proud to be part of the search for an additional airport and to act as one of the architects for the ultimate solution of the region's air transportation problems. However, we are also involved in numerous other activities at the local and national level. In late 1987, the Congress passed a law requiring the FAA to do a joint- use study of El Toro MCAS. At the commencement of the study, the City of Newport Beach and the AWG were briefed by the FAA regarding study intent and methodology. Our concern was that the study might be unduly influenced by military or political pressures in order to protect other interests. The FAA maintained that '~'~y would meet with and balance ~t from many sources, including ....~ City of Irvine and its citizens, and that the military would have an oppor- tunity to write its version of what joint use would do to their facility. Predictably, Irvine citizens and officials have teamed up to fight any joint use of El Toro. While we under- stand their apprehensions, we also understand the need to work together to solve air transportation problems. I have met with their City Council to begin bridging the gaps that exist between us and to bring them into the site selection process as full working partners. It is my belief that they will assist us in this endeavor. We have also come to understand that our air transportation problem is part of a larger national problem of lack of airport capacity. Because AWG believes that the best solution for our region is an additional airport, we, as members of the Airport Site Coalition, are contemplating support of a national organization called 'nership for Improved Air Travel. It coalition of airport, airline, and concerned citizens groups. We believe that affiliation with it may become important when the Airport Site Coalition makes its final recom- mendation, and political help is needed to make that recommendation happen. There are a number of other items happening on the local front. I am a member of Congressman Badham's Air Safety Advisory Panel. Our goal is to promote safety and assist in select- ing additional airport sites. The Congressman is in support of the Airport Radar Service Area (ARSA) system for John Wayne Airport, as is the FAA. I received a letter from the FAA stating that they anticipate in- stallation of this system at JWA in July of 1989. This will be a big step in enhancing the safety of our neighbor- hoods. I also sit on the Aviation Committee of the City of Newport Beach. In that capacity, we have reviewed several legitimate concerns regarding safety and noise expressed by the Balboa Improvement Association. Obviously there can never be enough safety, but I believe that we have come a long way toward addressing this issue with the ARSA system. Noise is another matter. To address this issue, the City has asked the County of Orange and the FAA to consider expanding the Delayed 'Thrust Program. Under this expanded procedure, the reapplication of thrust after the normal 1000-ft power cut- back noise abatement procedure will be delayed until the aircraft reaches 7 miles from the airport, instead of the current location directly over Balboa Island. Further, the City will be conducting additional noise studies for Balboa and the Peninsula regions. The County'§ monitoring system stops short of those areas, and we simply do not know what kind of noise is generated by departing aircraft as it relates to those sections of the city. Once this study is complete, we will be in a better position to ascertain the impacts of noise on Balboa and the Peninsula and to determine what we can do to alleviate those impacts. The Balboa Improvement Associ- ~Hion h~*ls sLJggested th~.H jets come straight from the airport, over Dover Shores and on to the ocean. The theory behind this pro- posed route is that there will be fewer people impacted than by the current route which calls for departure down the Bay, then crossing of Balboa Island and the Peninsula. The City of Newport will be looking into this suggestion to determine its feasibility. The amount of noise generated over the Island and the Penisula will have to be compared with 'the potential noise generated in the upper portions of the Bay. Yes, the airport issue remains with us in many forms. Although much has been done, there is still plenty to do. Your board of directors remains dedi- cated to woking on your behalf. / Clarence J. Turner, President NUISANCE from page one around the airport to sue for nuisance and inverse condemnation. In addition, it would have penalized all those living inside the noise impact area by taking away any further right to use the court once one suit had been filed. Barbara Lichman, Executive Di- rector of the Airport Working Group of Orange County, in cooperation with our affiliated state-wide group, the California Citizens' Airport Alliance, and the City of Newport Beach, went to Sacramento and succeeded in having the legislation withdrawn before it reached the floor of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. For the present session, we appear to be safe from this continuing attempt to take away our rights. However, we continue to be aware of the possibility that similar legislation may be inserted as an amendment to an existing bill later in the session. For this reason we will remain vigilant, and keep you informed if this "nuisance" comes up again. WE'VE GONE NATIONAL The Airport Working Group of Orange County-is now part of a national coalition of airport-impacted citizens' groups organized to take action at the national level. The National Airport Watch Group was founded in Chicago in Septem- ber, 1987 by AWG and eight other citizens' groups, including those at O'Hare International, Chicago; Seattle- Tacoma; Newark, N.J.; Minneapolis Metro; Phoenix International; Concord Airport in Northern California; and Baltimore-Washington. Our first concerted action was to oppose the recommendations of the Industry Task Force on Airport Capacity/Improvement and Delay Reduction, established in 1986 by Donald Engen, the former director of the FAA, and made up of repre- sentatives of six airlines, the Airport Operators Council International, and some individual airports. The recommendations were aimed ~' -chieving significant noise reduc- tions through phasing out the use of all Stage Two aircraft (noisy aircraft which are, unlike most of the airports in the nation, prohibited at JWA) by the year 2005. Unfortunately, in return for airline agreement to stop buying and using such planes, the federal government would have to subsidize the substitution of quieter planes, and agree that airport proprietors could no longer impose noise r~strictions at their own local airport. The useful life of a commercial aircraft is about 20 years, so most of the noisy aircraft would have been displaced by quieter, more fuel-ef- ficient aircraft by 2005 in the normal course of events. Moreover, pro- prietors now have the power to man- date such technology substitution independently at their own airports, as JWA and San Francisco Inter- national have already done. The National Airport Watch Group there- fore opposed the granting of federal subsidies and the stripping of tra- ditional local powers for nb reciprocal commitment by the airlines. Allan McArtor, the current FAA Administrator, had pledged last Feb- ruary to submit the recommendations to Congress in the form of legislation. However, due to numerous letters by members of our organization, and to withdrawal of support by the airport operators, Administrator McArtor has sent the recommendations back to the committee for "redrafting." The plan seems to have been headed off for 1988. The new objective of the National Airport Watch Group for this year is the development of a cad~e ol symp,~- thetic congresspersons and Senators who can be counted on when the going gets tough. In this way, Members of the Airport Working Group of Qrange County are being represented at the local level, the state level through the California Citizens' Airport Alliance, and in Washington. CALIFORNIA AIRPORT NOISE STANDARDS: FACT OR FICTION? exterior noise is as high as 75 (instead of 65) decibels, which is the existing standard. Finally, the revisions would change the noise measurement from CNEL to Ldn. Such a change, although appearing innocent, would allow 17% more flights with no change in the size of the noise impact area!! These are only a few of the changes In January, 1988, the Aviation Division of the California Department of Transportation ("CalTrans") pro- posed changes to the California State Noise Standards. Many of these changes were totally unacceptable to citizens who live around airports. For instance, CalTrans would cut back the requirement for noise monitoring to apply only to the largest airports, and would cut back the requirement of 12 monitors to a number to be determined at the dis- cretion of the proprietor. In fact, Cal- Trans would allow Counties to make the decmion as to whether there is a e problem at any airport in their ,diction, and thus whether there is a need for any monitoring at all! Clearly, at John Wayne Airport, where the County is the proprietor, this change represents an unacceptable conflict of interest. Further, CalTrans would make noise-insulated single-family dwell- ings compatible even though the the Airport Working Group became concerned about. After a meeting with the Santa Ana Heights Residents and members of our state-wide coalition, the California Citizens' Airport Alii- ance, the AWG sent a lengthy com- mentary to CalTrans as did several other member organizations of the California Citizens' Airport Alliance. Marianne Towersey of Santa Ana Heights also went to testify at a hearing in Los Angetes. So far, we have succeeded in having the comment period extended from February 15 to May 15. We have also apparently raised some serious questions at CalTrans. We are con- tinuing to monitor the progress of these changes, and have set up a meeting with the Director of the Aviation Division to be held before any action is taken. It is certain that we will never allow to be done admini- stratively what could not be done legislatively- take away the rights of citizens who live around airports. The accomplishments you have n reading about have only come about through your help. The AWG ,uld not have become a respected local, state, and ation-wide organization without our members, and we can't go further without you. The site selection process is particula~ demanding. Resolving conflicts and undoing mistakes that are decades old is very expensive. We will need both your financial help and, ultimately, your active participation. Please help us meet this final challenge by sending your contribution today. I want to give AWG more support' in finding an ADDITIONAL AIRPORT SITE, and in its other activities. NAME ADDRESS PHONE I can give: I"l $25 [] $50 [] $75 [] $100 [] $2,50 [] other I have the following comments: I understand that any contribution is FULLY TAX DEDUCTIBLE. Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc. 200 Newport Center Drive, Suite 204, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 645.8136 200 Newport Center Drive, Suite 204, Newport Beach, California 92660 NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION U.S. POSTAGE PAID NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA PERMIT NO. 84