Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOld Business #2 8-03-87DATE: ~ AUGUST 3, 1987 Com ~ TO: ~ILLIA~! A. HUSTO#, CI~ I~A#AGER FROM: CO~#I~ DEItELOI~ENT DEPAR~E#T SUBJECT: AIRPORT #OISE HITIGATIO# ~IE~URES REC0~E#DED ACTIO#: Direct staff to follow-up on any preferred alternative proposals. BACKGROUND: At a regular meeting of the City Council on July 20, 1987, representatives from the John Wayne Airport (JWA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Flight Control Office were present to answer questions relating to recent noise problems associated with flight approaches at JWA. In response to concerns expressed by residents in attendance at the meeting, the City Council requested that staff report back with the following information: {1) costs for possible purchase of* noise testing equipment; (2) monitoring of flight approach altitudes; and (3) proposed regulations and enforcement guidelines for reduction of single event noise problems usually associated with aircraft. Information requested on legal options available to the City Council will be made available from the City Attorney's office in the near future. 1. Purchase of Noise Testing Equipment Staff have contacted a number of public agencies and consultants in an attempt to determine the type and costs for purchase, maintenance and operation of aircraft noise testing equipment (i.e. Orange County Health Department, Cities of Newport Beach, Long Beach, Inglewood, the JWA Noise Abatement Office, noise consultants - Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc. and Mestre Greve Assoc.) while our contacts indicated that noise testing equipment was available from numerous firms with the actual type and class of equipment varying from manufacturer to manufactureer, two major manufacturers provide testing units which have a higher degree of recognition and credibility in any court hearing. Portable testing units manufactured by Larson Davis and B & K can range in base price from $10,000 to $40,000. In addition to portable units, permanent noise monitoring stations can be installed but can range in base price from $120,000 to $250,000. Base prices for portable units or City Council Report August 3, 1987 Page 2 permanent stations do not include additional costs for computer software and hardware for interpretation of test results nor any personnel required to operate and maintain the systems. Information obtained indicated that computer costs can easily exceed base equipment costs. Calibration of equipment is also necessary at least once a year and can also be quite expensive. The operation and maintenance of these units also require very specialized technical knowledge and expertise in the field of acoustical engineering for proper placement of testing equipment and interpretation of test results. The minimum level of expertise is generally found to be an individual possessing a State of California professional engineering certification {P.E.) with a specialty in civil, electrical or mechanical engineering and a minimum of four (4) years of experience in noise acoustics or a combination of experience and exam certification by the Institute of Noise Control (a 8 hour exam certification). Other than those jurisdictions that actually operate their own airports such as the County of Orange and the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, most communities contacted by staff did not feel it efficient or cost effective to purchase their own noise testing equipment but rather have chosen to contract for noise testing services. There are numerous firms in the Orange County and Los Angeles area which provide noise testing and interpretation services. Generally, these firms can be hired on an hourly basis or fixed rate annual service fee providing the personnel, equipment and computer assisted interpretation of test results. In terms of cost, hourly rates for firms with noise expertise' range from $30.00 to $70.00 per hour. This fee fluctuates from firm to firm and in accordance with the experience of the noise technician hired. Noise testing firms are experienced in preparing legally acceptable noise tests and have been used in cities such as Newport Beach, Long Beach and Inglewood. An additional alternative available to the City Council would be to consider the purchase of noise testing equipment and use of an outside consultant firm to conduct the actual tests and interpret test results. This alternative would still require purchase of computer software and hardware and the portable testing unit as well as any consultant costs. Should the City Council wish noise testing in addition to testing proposed by JWA in the near future, staff would recommend that the City employ the use of a noise test consultant in lieu of purchasing its own equipment. This approach offers noise testing capabilities and the required personnel, computers and testing equipment without significant capital outlay costs to the City. The minimum capital outlay for the City's own purchase of computer hardware and software and also the use or hiring of any additional staff support for technical interpretation would run quite high and would require continual payment of maintenance fees and salaries needed for personnel. Community Development Deparirnent City Council Report August 3, 1987 Page 3 Use of consultant services would allow flexibility In cost and services. The City would pay only for the time needed to conduct the studies necessary or to respond to specific complaints as opposed to paying fees indefinitely for personnel, equipment and maintenance. This would also place the City in a much better position to benefit from changes tn technology (which occur frequently in the computer/noise field) and also provide consistent and reliable information tn the event that information is needed for future legal actions. 2. Altitude Honitortn~ As requested, staff has checked tnto the availability of altitude monitoring equipment. At this time, there Is no device available other than the instruments located in a FAA Flight Control Tower. As suggested by Hr. Jay Haag of the FAA, the City can monitor altitudes from the JWA tower as long as arrangements are made with his offtce. [n further discussion with Hr. Haag, the City could station someone at the tower Honday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for as long as the City wishes to do so. The staff would suggest that as part of any contractual notse testing service, that a consultant representative could be selected to sit in the tower and to monitor the fltght altitudes for at least one week and for a few additional days throughout the month on a somewhat random basis. This wtll help to get a full range of monitoring and yet provide for some subsequent random checks for back-up Investigation. Staff would also be prepared to plot the locations of any altttude violations based on collected information. 3. Single Event Noise Incidents At this time, JWA utilizes five primary tools for regulating airport noise: State Airport Noise Standards (Title 2[) State standards regulate sensitive land uses within 65 dba CNEL contours. Up to [986, this State standard was based on a 70 CNEL contour with JWA achieving [005 compliance in [984. With reduction of the CNEL maximum to 65 dba CNEL contours, approxtmatgely [4-[8 homes were tmpacted necessitating that JWA obtain a variance from the State for continued operation. The most recent variance granted several weeks ago by the State is valid for three (3) years. Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24) Title 24 establishes noise attenuation regulations for new construction requiring that interior noise levels in residential development not exceed 45 dba tntertor noise level. Community DeveloPment DeparTrnen~ City Counctl Report August 3, 1987 Page 4 County Noise Element The Orange County General Plan Noise Element requires that extertor noise levels not exceed 65 dBa's CNEL. New construction projects are requtred to submit detatled noise acoustical studtes wtthtn 65 CNEL contour, areas to ensure that appropriate destgn and construction mitigation measures w111 adequately meet TiNe 24 requirements and 65 dba exterior noise ltmtts. JWA Access Plan The JWA Access Plan classifies commercial planes Into three groups with the following Single Event Noise Exposure Levels ($ENEL) standards: Class "A" under 100 dba at any monttor. Class "AA" under 89.5 dba at any monitor. Class "E" under 86 dba at any monttor. Tha Airport Noise Abatement office reviews each carrier's noise readouts on a quarterly basis; If a carrier exceeds any of the SENEL standards, airport management would take whatever necessary action it deems appropriate tn terms of penalties (e.g. reduction In ADDs to expulsion from JWA). County Ordinance No. 3505 County Ordinance No. 3505 primarily serves to regulate stngle event noise exposure levels ($ENEL) for purposes of 11mtttng noise at John Wayne Airport (see attached Ordinance). The maximum permissible SENEL for airport operations at night recorded at any monitoring station either on take-off or landing is limited to under 86 dB(a) SENEL. Airport operations at night are defined by take offs between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (8 a.m. on Sundays) and landings between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. (8 a.m. on Sundays). Commercial airline operations are also restricted from operating at the airport if they generate SENEL levels averaged over a quarterly period as measured from monitoring station M1, M6, and M7 at noise levels of 98.5, 100 dba and 100 dBa's respectively. No general aviation operations are permitted which exceed the SENEL levels established for commercial aircraft. However, there is no mention in the County Ordinance of averaging SENEL levels over a quarterly period of time for general aviation operations. The Airport Noise Abatement office instituted curfew watches in April, 1986. Personnel from that office position themselves at the Corn rnunity Development Department .~ City Council Report August 3, 1987 Page 5 runway to identify any lane tn violation of Ordinance No. 3505. Upon the flrst violation, by a commercial airline or general avtatton aircraft, a strong warning ts sent to the violator. Upon a second violation, the Orange County Dlstrlct Attorney files crlmtnal charges against the violator. The Ctty's authority is extremely limited in regulated SENEL levels for alrcraft operation, particularly for an atrport that is not o~ned and operated by the City. Even the County's authority as an atrport operator In regulating SENEL levels can be tmpacted by federal Intervention. A recent example is the considerable efforts by the Ctty of Long Beach. The City after preparing a part 150 noise study had attempted to establish notse crtterta based solely on SENEL standards rather than also utilizing 65 CNEL criteria. The Ctty also attempted to impose restrictions that would actually reduce the number of flights of a commercial airline for each recorded violation of SENEL ltmtts. Both the FAA and subsequently the California Courts have determined that atrport noise regulation wtth overly restrictive SENEL criteria alone was an unacceptable approach. At thts ttme, staff would recommend that the City pursue the following actions In addressing the issue of stngle event notse. - A mitigation measure contained tn EIR 508 states: "A study shall be conducted to tdentlfy the optimum descent pattern that would ensure aircraft safety while reducing residential noise impacts. As recommended by the City, the County was to have requested that the study be performed by FAA, the Agency responsible for regulating aircraft approach procedures." According to County officials, the initial request was made to the FAA. However, the FAA has declined to perform this study, and has indicated that they would review/critique such a study upon its completion by some other party. At this time, the County intends to make a second request to the FAA., The City could also seek to apply pressure on the FAA through our Congressmen and Senators. - Through the use of a noise consultant firm, as recommended earlier in this agenda report, the City should monitor single noise incidents and recommend acceptable SENEL regulations (standards and enforcement policies) which could be legally defensible. Upon completion of this analysis, recommendations could be presented to the County, FAA and airlines with political influence applied where necessary. Corn rnuni~y Developrnen~ Deparirnen~ ~ City Council Report August 3, 1987 _ Page 6 - The City should continue to actively attend and participate in the Orange County Noise Abatement Committee. This is a committee made up of airport, FAA and airline officials, as well as other interested agencies and organizations. It is presently in the process of adopting by-laws to establish its purpose. This committee might be an appropriate forum to present any proposed SENEL regulations, as well as implementation of the £IR 508 mitigation measure discussed above. Christine Shingl~con j/ Oi rector of Communi ty ~D~vel opment CAS:pef Corn rnunity DeveloPment Department CALIFORNIA,ADDING ARTICLE 3 TO DIVISION 1, Genernl Aviation Airc~ as sue# are defined in this Sec. 2-1-30.10. Exclusion of violation-prone aircraft. able notification as to tho~e aireraR presumptively incapable of meeting County. California. held on the ~9th day of March. ~5. the foregoing ord,- AYES: SUPERVISORS THOMAS F RI~Y. BRUCE N~STANDK. ABSENT* SUPERVISORS HARRI~ M. WIEDER Clerk of the Board o~ Supe~isors ~ublisbed: Saddleback Valley News March ~, l~ ~0~ REPORTS A G E N D A 8-3-87 TUSTIN ~ANNING ~ISSION REGULAR ~ZNG ~ULY 27, 1987 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Puckett,. Wetl, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontlous REORGANIZATZON: (The Chairman will open the meeting up to 'nominations from the Commission for Chairman. Upon election of a Chairman, new Chairman will open nominations and hold election of Vi ce-Chat rman. ) Commissioner Le 3eune moved to nominate A1 Baker as Chairman. Commissioner Puckett nominated Kathy Wet1 for Chairman. Commissioner Baker moved that nominations close, Pontlous seconded. Vote for Chairman: Baker - 1, Wet1 - 4. Chairman #etl opened nominations for Chatrm~n Pro-rem. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Puckett seconded to nominate A1 Baker. ~mmtsstoner Well asked that Commissioner ~aker be be elected unantmousl) as Chairman Pro-rem. All unanimously agreed. PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of June 29, 1987 Plannin9 Commission Meettn9 Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Puckett seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried $-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. USE PERMIT 87-13 pppltcant/Property Owner: Mr. Dusktn Keller and Mr. Tim Keller 18826 Wlndwood Lane, Santa Aha, Ca 92705 Location: 210 S. Pacific Street Planning Commission Action Agenda July 27, 1987 Page two Request To build a 2360 Square foot second single family unit Resolution No. 2417 Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin authorizing construction of a 2360 square foot second single family unit at 210 S. Pacific Street Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 87-13 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2417. Morton carrted 5-0. 3. Zone Change 87-1, 87-2 General Plan Amendment 87-1 Applicant: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Location: Properties located on the west side of Newport Avenue between the 1-5 Freeway and Mitchell Avenue and on the east side of Newport Avenue between Main and San Juan Streets Resolution No. 2413 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California, recommending that the City Council amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan (General Plan Amendment 87-1) for properties generally located on the east side of "B" Street south of the I-5 Freeway from {M-F) Multi-family and (C) Commercial to the (PC-C) Planned Community Commercial Distict Resolution No. 2412 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, recommending Zone Change 87-1 to rezone properties generally located east of Newport Avenue between Main Street and San Juan from (CG) Commercial General and (CG-PUD) Commercial General Planned Unit Development to (PC-C) Planned Community Commercial. Resolution No. 2414 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, recommending Zone Change 87-2 to rezone properties generally located west of Newport Avenue between the I-5 Freeway and Mitchell Avenue from Multiple Family Residential (R-3) and Reta(1 Commercial (C-1) to Planned Community Commercial (PC-C) Resolution No. 2411 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, establishing guidelines for review of Conditional Use Permit applications and proposed development plans on properties located in the Planned Community Commercial District. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to recomend to City Council an amendment of the Land Use Element of the General Plan by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2413. #orlon carried 5-0. Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to recommend Zone Change 87-1 by the aGoptlon o? Kesolutlon No. Z41Z. notion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Action Agenda July 27, 1987 'age three Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to recommend Zone Change 87-2 by the adoptlon of Resolution #o. 2414. #otton carrted: 5-0. Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to established guidelines for revtew of Conditional Use Permit applications and proposed development plans on properties located tn the Planned Community Commaerctal Dtstrtct by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2411. Morton carrted 5-0. 4. Use Permtt 87-14 and Vartance 87-04 Applicant: Mr. Don Gretnke on behalf of Southern Counties Otl Location: 13918 - 13922 Newport Avenue and 1016 - 1022 Bonita Avenue, parcels are continguous Request: Use Permit 87-14 to authorize a self-service, card-locking commercial fuel facility at the subject address and to install an eight (8) foot block wall at the subject address; and Variance 87-04 to authorize the placement of a sign in the front setback area and to authorize placement of a freestanding control building within a side yard setback area. · 'esolution No. 2420 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, approving Use Permit 87-14 authorizing a 24 hour self-service commercial fuel pumping opertton and an eight (8) foot high block wall on the properties known as 13918-13922 Newport Avenue and 1016-1022 Bonita Avenue Resolution No. 2421 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, approving Variance application 87-04 authorizing placement of a business identification sign in a 15' highway setback area and authorizing a free-standing building within the required side yard setback area for the properties located at 13918-13922 Newport Avenue and 1016-1022 Bonita Avenue Presentation: Jeffrey S. Davis, Senior Planner Commissioner Puckett moved, Le 3eune seconded to approve Use Permit 87-14 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2410 with some minor changes to the o~tglnal resolution. Motion carried $-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve Variance No. 87-04 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2421 with some minor changes to the ortgtnal resolution. Morton carried: 5-o. Planning Commission Actton Agenda July 27, 1987 Page four 5. Use Per~tt NO. 87-15 & Variance No. 87-03 Applicant: 30th Street Architects on behalf of Ruby's Restaurant Owner; John Prescott Location: Ruby's Restaurant 205 E1 Camtno Real - SE Corner of E1 Camtno Real and Second Street Request: Authorization for an On-stte beer and wine license, Type 41. Parking Vartance permtt ntne (9) tnstead of the requtred 35 parktng spaces. Resolution No. 2418 A resolution of the Planntng Commission of the Ctty of Tusttn, authorizing a beer and wtne 11cerise for on-stte sales at 205 E1 Camlno Real Resolution No. 2419 A resolution of the Planntng Commission of the Ctty of Tusttn, approving Variance No. 87-03, allowing an existing non-conforming restaurant at 205 E1Camtno Real to vary with the parking requirements in the C-2 zone. Presentation: Patrtzta Materasst, Planner Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit No. 87-15 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2418 with some minor changes. Hotlon carrted: 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve Vartance No. 87-03 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2419 with some minor changes. Hotton carrted: 5-0. 6. Amendment No. i to Use Permit 87-7 Applicant: Mr. Mark Ootta on behalf of Red Htll Lutheran Church Location: 13200 Red Htll Avenue Owner: Red H111 Lutheran Church Request: Authorization to add 2,100 square feet of storage space In a basement. Resolution No. 2422: A Resolution of the Planntng Commission of the City of Tusttn, California, approving Amendment No. 1 to Use Permit 87-7 authorizing 2,100 square feet of basement storage at 13200 Red Hill Avenue. Presentation: Jeffrey S. Davis, Senior Planner Commissioner Puckett moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Amendment No. I to Use Permit 87-7 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2422. Rotton carrted 5-0. OLD BUSZNESS Planning Commission Action Agenda July 27, [987 age five NEM BUSZNESS 7. Neon Sign for Saba's Market Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner Comtsstoner Ponttous moved, Baker seconded to issue a Minute Order to deny the destgn of the neon slgn. Motion carried 5-0. Co, mtsstoner Puckett moved, Ponttous seconded to approve the Sign on Exhibit B by Mtnute Order. Flotlon carrled: 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS 8. Report on Actions Taken at ~u1¥ 6, [987 City Council Meettn9 Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development g. Report on Actions Taken at July 20, 1987 City Council Meeting Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development ;0#HISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Le aeone noted concern-regarding large truck parking on Pacific and 5th Street. Commissioner Puckett requested that staff agondtze shorter items first. Chairperson Well suggested that the Comdsston might be able to keep a list of banners they notice within town. Commissioners Ponttous and Le Jeune are attending the Joint South Orange County Plaflntflg Commissioners ,eettng tn September. ADJOUR~E~T Commissioner Puckettmoved, Baker seconded to Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Comflsston ~eettng on August 10, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried by unanimous consent.