Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 AIRPORT NOISE RPT. 07-16-01AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE' JULY 16, 2001 TO' WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NO. 11 07-16-01 690-10 SUBJECT: JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT QUARTERLY REPORTS SUMMARY: This report transmits two John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Quarterly Reports for the third and fourth quarters of 2000. The average noise level measured at monitoring station NMS 10N, located at Columbus Tustin Middle School, decreased during third and fourth quarters. Average noise levels during both quarters remained below the City, County, and State criteria of 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for residential uses. RECOMMENDATION Receive and file report. FISCAL IMPACT On December 18, 2000, the City Council authorized Wieland Associates to review JWA Noise Abatement Quarterly Reports. The costs for such reviews are annually included in the Community Development Department budget. DISCUSSION Following the conclusion of each calendar quarter, John Wayne Airport prepares a Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report and transmits a copy of the report to the City of Tustin. Twice a year, the City's consultant prepares a report, which summarizes two quarterly reports. Attachment A contains the quarterly reports for the third and fourth quarters of 2000. Attachment B contains the summary report prepared by the noise consultant. A brief overview of the information contained within these attachments is as follow. Measured Noise Levels During the third quarter of 2000, the average CNEL at Remote Monitoring Station (NMS) 10N, located at Columbus Tustin Middle School was 57.0 dB. This is .1 dB JWA Noise Report July 16, 2001 Page 2 less than the four previous quarters. However, for comparison, the CNEL was .4 dB lower (57.4) during the third quarter of 1999. During the fourth quarter of 2000, the average CNEL was 56.7 dB. This is .3 dB more than the four previous quarters. For comparison, the CNEL was .7 dB higher (56.0) dudng the fourth quarter of 1~. All measured noise levels are below the City, County, and State criteria of 65 dB CNEL for residential areas. Noise Complaints During the third quarter of 2000, there were 16 Tustin area complaints compared with 50 for the same period during 1999. During the fourth quarter of 2000, there were 17 Tustin area complaints compared with 18 for the same period during 1999. The number of complaints decreased during the third and fourth quarters compared to the same period in 1999. The overall number of complaints during the second two quarters of 2000 does not appear to correlate with the average quarterly aircraft CNEL nor with the number of quarterly jet operations at the airport. The average quarterly aircraft CNEL peaked during the second quarter, while the number of complaints from residents of the Tustin area fell steadily throughout the year. Type and Mix of Aircraft Related to Noise Levels During the third quarter of 2000, the percentage of quieter Class E aircraft and the percentage of noisier Class A aircraft decreased compared with the same period in 1999. The average CNEL for the third quarter of 2000 was slightly lower than the same period during 1999. During the fourth quarter of 2000, the percentage of quieter Class E aircraft and the percentage of noisier Class A aircraft increased compared with the same period in 1999. The average CNEL for the fourth quarter was slightly higher than the fourth quarter of 1999. The percentage of quieter Class E aircraft using John Wayne Airport has increased slightly in 2000 compared to 1999. This percentage increase in Class E aircraft was offset by a decrease in the use of the noisier Class A and Class AA aircraft. Based on data from the first quarter of 1999 through the fourth quarter of 2000, JWA Noise Report July 16, 2001 Page 3 there does not appear to be any correlation between the aircraft mix and the average quarterly CNEL at NMS 10. Airport Noise Contours Wieland and Associates, Inc. utilized a noise cont°ur in preparing the attached report. This noise contour is based on the 2000 contours developed by the noise consultant for the John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement office. Using this new contour, it is estimated that in 2000 the aircraft-generated CNEL in Tustin will range from about 59 dB to less than 55 dB. This is well below the City, County, and State criteria of 65 dB for residential areas. Since noise issues are of considerable importance to the City of Tustin, the Community Development Department will continue to monitor operations at John Wayne Airport unless otherwise directed by the City Council. Just'h Willkom Associate Planner Attachments' Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director A, B. John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Quarterly Reports for July 1, 2000- September 30, 2000 and October 1,2000- December 31,2000. Review of John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Reports, 3rd and 4th Quarters 2000 (Wieland and Associates). S:\CDD~JUSTINA~JWA~JWA report to council 07-16-O1 .doc NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT For the period: July 1, 2000 through September 30, 2000 Prepared in accordance with: AIRPORT NOISE STANDARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA California Administrative Code Title 21, Chapter 2.5, SubChapter 6: Division of Aeronautics Noise Standards S/~bmitted by: Alan L. Murphy/ Airport Director John Wayne Airport, Orange County INTRODUCTION This is the 11 lth Quarterly Report submitted by the County of Orange in accordance with the requirements of the California Airport Noise Standards (California Administrative Code Title 21, Chapter 2.5, SubChapter 6: Division of Aeronautics Noise Standards). Effective January 1, 1986, the criteria for defining "Noise Impact Area" was changed from 70 dB to 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Under this criteria, John Wayne Airport currently has a "Noise Impact Area." NOISE IMPACT SUMMARY Caltrans' Aeronautics Program has established guidelines in the California State Noise Standard to control residential area noise levels produced by aircraft operations using the State's airports. Under those guidelines, residential noise sensitive areas exposed to an average Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of more than 65 dB define the "Noise Impact Area." John Wayne Airport uses ten permanent remote noise monitoring stations (NMS) located in Newport Beach, Santa Ana, Tustin and Irvine to measure noise levels, at the following locations: MONITOR STATIONS NMS-1 S: Golf Course, 3100 Irvine Ave., Newport Beach NMS-2S: 20152 S.W. Birch St., Santa Ana NMS-3S: 2139 Anniversary Lane, Newport Beach NMS-4S: 2338 Tustin Ave., Newport Beach NMS-5S' 324 V2 Vista Madera, Newport Beach NMS-6S: 1912 Santiago, Newport Beach NMS-7S' 1131 Back Bay Drive, Newport Beach NMS-8N: 17372 Eastman Street, Irvine NMS-9N: 1300 S. Grand Avenue, Santa Ana NMS-10N:17952 Beneta Way, Tustin The map in Figure 1 shows the general location of each permanent remote monitor station. Figure 2 shows the Airport's "Noise Impact Area" for the previous year (October 1, 1999 - September 30, 2000). The Figure 2 information was developed by Mestre-Greve Associates, Inc., in consultation with John Wayne Airport. CNEL values measured for the period and current digitized land use information were utilized to calculate the land area acreages, number of residences and estimated number of people within the "Noise Impact Area". -1- F!GURE I JO'N WAYN- A R:OR- S-A- ON OCA- ON MA: CO~ST ...................... ,1., § FREEWAY NMS NMS 8N ] ? ., ~¥ r ' NMS - NOISE MONITORING STATION -2- ' FIGURE 2 O Noise Monitom Single Family Residential 65 dB CNEL Contour Multi-Family Residential STATISITICS: Incompatible Land Use Area: 16.9 Acres or .026 square miles Number of Dwellings: 103 Number of People: 258 (based on 2.5 people per dwelling unit) JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 65dB CNEL Impact Area October 1999 - September 2000 Me.~-ire Greve Associates AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC SUMMARY The Airport traffic summary for this quarter is shown in Table 1 and Figure 3 below. Air Carrier operational count histories and average daily departure counts are illustrated in Tables 9 & 11. TABLE 1 LANDING AND TAKEOFF OPERATIONS J,uly - S ~ptember 2000 Period Air Carriers GA Jet (1) Total Average Daily , Jet Prop O, pe,,rations (2) Jet Operations .July 6,868 894 1,487 33,800 270 August 7,148 890 1,,,468 33,614 278 September 6,907 825 1,331 32,441 275 Third Quarter 20,923 2,609 4,286 99,855 274 , ,, Twelve Months 86,3531 9,868 14,308 412,046 275 10/01/99 - 09/30/00 FIGURE 3 QUARTERLY AIRPORT TRAFFIC SUMMARY (Landing and Takeoff Operations) Jet Carrier Military Prop Carrier GA Jet GA Other July - September 2000 ~ _~._'~'--"~-~'~1 20,923 45 /"! 2,609 i 4,286 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Number of Operations NOTE: (1) GA Jet figures include a 5% factor for operations not identified by the JWA noise monitor stations. (2) Counts in this column are based upon records provided by the local FAA representatives. ,C. OMMUN,!TY NOISE EQUIV,,,ALENT LEVELS The monthly, quarterly and twelve month Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) average values for each monitor station are shown in Table 2, while daily CNEL values are shown in Tables 3 through 5. Insufficient data is indicated by "#N/A" entries in each table. Average Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL) values for Air Carrier and Business Jet aircraft are shown in Tables 6 through 8. For the twelve month period ending September 30, 2000, 103 dwelling units in Santa Ana Heights were in the "Noise Impacted Area" (within the 65 dB CNEL contour); this represents a decrease of 16 units in the number of dwelling units in the "Noise Impacted Area" from the previous twelve month period ending June 30, 2000. This -4- reduction is the result of updated land use data that recently became available and does not reflect acoustical insulation completed for these 16 units during the quarter ending September 30, 2000. The State has approved several remedies of aircraft noise levels for noise sensitive property in the "Noise Impact Area"' homes can be acoustically insulated, purchased by the County, or rezoned for "other non-noise sensitive uses." As part of the County's Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program, approximately 77 general agriculture (A-l) properties with residential land uses on Orchard, Acacia and Birch Streets were rezoned for Business Park Use in October, 1986. Each property was individually sold and subsequently converted to compatible land use. Between 1986 and 1993, 124 residences have been purchased or otherwise made compatible through the County's Purchase Assurance Program, Acoustical Insulation Program or Housing Relocation Program. In September 1993, the FAA approved a grant to fund a voluntary Accelerated Acoustical Insulation Program (AAIP) in Santa Ana Heights. (The current AAIP has been renamed "Santa Ana Heights Acoustical Insulation Program" with the acronym "SAH AIP".) During the third quarter of 2000, no additional residences have been made compatible through the County's SAH AIP. A total of 267 residences in Santa Ana Heights have been purchased or otherwise made compatible through the County's Purchase Assurance Program, Housing Relocation Program, Acoustical Insulation Program or SAH AIP. TELEPHONE COMPLAINT CALLS (July 1, 2000 - September 30, 2000) The Airport's Access and Noise Office receives and investigates noise calls and complaints from local citizens and all other sources. During the period July 1, 2000 through September 30, 2000, the Office received 660 complaints from citizens. This is a 8.3% decrease from the 720 complaints received last quarter. It is a 3.5% decrease from the 684 complaints received during the same quarter last year. Figure 4 shows the distribution of the quarterly telephone calls and complaints from local communities. FIGURE 4 HISTOGRAM BY COMMUNITY 250 ................ 196 2O0 150 100 50 Community ii I 31 27 34 2726 28 16 6 6 3 7 9 10 11 One household was responsible for 89% of the 196 calls from Balboa Penninsula. -5- TABLE 2 LONG TERM MEASURED LEVELS Aircraft CNEL from 10/99 through 9/00 Values in dB at Each Site Period NMS Site . 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8N 9N 10N Oct 1999 66.1 66.1 64.4 58.8 57.4 ' 59.9 57.9 6'~.551 .0 56.1 # Days 31 30 31 30 31 29 27 30 22 31 Nov 1999 66.4 66.4 64.8 59.2 58.0 59.5 57.2 67.7 52.9 55.7 # Days 30 29. 30 29 30 29= 12 28 18 29 Dec 1999 65.4 65.3 65.3 59.2 56.8 60.4 57.3 66.6 53.4 56.1 # Days 31 31 31 30' 30 31 29 30 22 26 Q-4 1999 66.0 66.0 64.9 59.0 57.4~ 60.0 57.5~ 67.3 52.5 56.0, # Days 92 90 92 89 91 89 68 88 62 86 jan 2000 66.2 66.1 64.8 59.3 58.2 59.9 57.~) 68.0 51.7 56.6 # Days 31 31 31 29 31 31 21 31 29 27 Feb 2000 66.9 66.5 65.3 59.9 59.1 60.3 57.6 68.6 52.8 57.4 # Days 28 28 28 25' 26 23 13~ 16 14 18 Mar 2000 66.7 66.4 .65.1 59.9 ' '59.2 60.6 57.7 68.6 #N/A 57.9, # Days 31 29 28 27 30 21 20 19 0, 21 Q-1 2000 66.6 66.3 65.0 59.7 58.8 60.2 57.4 68.3 52.1 57.3 # Days 90 88 87 81 , 87 75 54 66 43 66 Apr 2000 66.7 66.8, 65.0 60.5 59.1 #N/A 57.8 68.8 57.0 58.2 # Days 30 30 29 22 27 0 21 29 7 20 May 2000 66.9 67.1 65.3 60.5 59.0 #N/A 57.5 68.7' 51.2 57.4, # Days . 31 30 30 15 25 0 23 30 18 16 Jun 2000 66.8 67.0 65.1 60.7 59.1 #N/A 57.8 68.9 51.0 58.2 # Days 30 23 30 14 26 0, 24 , 28 18 14 'Q-2 2000 66.8 67.0 65.2 60.5 59.1 #N/A 57.7 68.8 52.8 58.0 ~# Days 91 831 89 51 78 0 68 87 43 50 Jul 2000 66.6 66.8 65.1 60.1 58.4! 60.2 57.5 68.8 50.6 57.3 # Days 31 30 30' , 24 31 25 26 27 25 11 Aug 2600 66.9 67.1 65.1 59.3 58.6 59.7 58.3 68.6 48.9 57.9 # Days 31 31 31 30 31 30 14 31 24 8 Sop 2000 66.5 66.5 64.3 58.9 57.9 59.6 58.1 68.4 51.2 56.6 i# Days 30 24 30 29 30 26 20 30 22 27 Q-3 200t) 66.7. 66.9! 64.9 59.4 58.3 '59.8 57.9 68.6 50~3 57.1:) # Da~s 92 85 91 83. 92 81 60 , 88 71 46 Q-4 1999 thru Q-3 2000 Total 166.5166.565.059.658.460-057-668.351-9'57.0 #Days 365, 346 359 304 348 245 250 329 219' 248 , , Q-3 1999 thru Q-2 2000 (Previous 4 Quarters) Total 166.51 66.51 65.0 59.8 58.5 60.0: 57.7 68.2 52.0 57.1 # DaysI 3651 3531353 309 346 254 271 330 226 291 Change from Previous 4 Quarters I 0-01 0'01 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 .-0.1 -6- TABLE 3 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION July 2000 Date NMS Site ' 1~; '2S 38 48 58 "'SS 78 aN ON 10N , ,, I 65.7 65.1 64.5 60.5! 57.2 #N/~ 58.3 68.2 53.8 #N/^ 2 651 65.6 65.1#N/A 57.1 #N/A 57.4 #N/A 53.1 55.4 3 65.4 65.2 64.5 #N/A 57.2 #N/~ 55.4 #N/^ 48.3 #N/A 4 64.3 65.0 #N/A #N/A 56.4 #N/A 59.7 #N/A 52.1 56.4 ,, ,, , 5 66.6 66.7 65.4 60.1 58.9 #N/A 57.6 #N/A 52.9 #N/~ 6 66.5 66.8 64.6 60.2 58.5 61.8 56.8 69.2 52.5 59.1 . , , , ,, 7 .,66:2 66.7 64.4 59.9 58.5 .59.6 58:5 68.6 50.7i. #N/A 8 65.5 65.5 63.8 #N/A 58.1 61.3 58.9 68.1 44.7 58.1 , 91 66.7 66.5 65.1 61.4 58.1 59.6 #N/^ 70.2 #N/~ #N/^ 10 67.0 67.2 65.259.3 59.1 60.5 58.0 69.351.5 58.6 11 66.5 67.3 65.1 59.9 58.8 61,1 57.1 68.7 54.2 #N/^ 12' 67.0 67.2 65.6 61.2 59.2 61.2 58.4 69.1 50.3 #N/A ·" 13' 67.2 68.1 "' 65.6 59.1 59.4 "'60.7 57.5' 68.7 #N/A: #N/A 14 66.8 #N/A 64.6 60,7 60.1 60.3 57.9 69.0 49.3: #N/A 15 65.2 65.9 63.9 57.8 57.9 58.8 57.0 69.3 43.7 55.5 16 67.4 67.5 66.5 61.7 59.3 60.4 57.9 68.9 41.4 56.3! ..-- .~ i . ~ .. 17 67.3 68.5 65.6 #N/A 58.2 60.757.0 68.3 53.3 #N/A . i i . ..1 18 67.1 68.0' 65.6 #N/A 58.9 60.1 56.4 68.1 47.3 #N/A ~ , i i 19 66.7 67.4 65.3 61.8 57.7 59.5 58.4 68.3 46.5 #N/A 20 67.3 67.2 65.5 61.5 58.5 60.6 56.7 69.1 45.1 #N/^ , , 21 67.5 67.0 65.2 60.2 58.2 60.3 57.1 6916 47.9 #N/A .~ ~1 . ill 22 65.2 65.3 63.8 58.1 57.7 58.6 56.6 66.5 45.3 55.1 .1 , , , i~ 23 66.6 66.5 64.3 61.6 57.0 58.5 55.7 68.9 37.3 56.9 24 66.9 6711' 64.2 ..... 58'.1 57.4 58.5 55.7 68.7 54.6 58.8 25 67.4 67.1 65.8 59.8 58.7 60.5 56.7 69.1 #N/A #N/A i ii iiii ! iii iiii i 26 67.5 67.2 65.9 60.1 58.6 60.9 #N/~ 69.1 52,5 #N/^ , ,,, ill,il ii 27 67.2 67.3 65.8 #N/A 59.1 #N/A #N/A 69.6 49.5 #N/A ... 2..867.7 67.7 66.1 59.9,. 59.4 60.6 57.6 69.0 #N/A 57.7, 29 66.0 66.1 63.8 57.3 57.3 57.9 #N/A 67.0 #N/A #N/A ........ 30 66.5 66.7 65.1 60.1 58.3 59.5 58.3 69.6 4711 #N/A 31 67.2 67.1 65.5 59.4 58.2 60.2 #N/^ 68.9#N/^ #N/^ Days 31 30 30 24 31 25 26 27 25 11 ,, En.Avg 66.6 66,8 65.1 60.1 58.4 60.2 57.5 68.8 50.6 57.3~ , , #N/A indicates insufficient data. -7- TABLE 4 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION August 2000 ' Date .... NMs Siie ' "lS 28 38 48 '58 68 78 8N oN 10N 1 66.4 66.6 64.9 58.6~ 58.4 60.3 56.6 67.{9 #N/A #N/A , , , ,, , .... 2! 67.0 67.1 64.9 59.3 58.7 60.1 56.7 68.8 50.7 #N/A, ,, ,, I,lll , 3 67,4 67,8 66,0 59.3' 59,2 60,0 57.2 68,5 51,6 #N/A i i i ii i i ii! i i1! i i 4 67.6 67.9 65.4 59.3 59.2 60.0~ 58.0 68.9 47.7 59.1 - 5 65.8 66.4 64.1 58.1 57'4 58.9 "58.8 67.1 48.8 #N/A 6 66,8~ 66.8 64,9 58,0 58,0 59.3'#N/A 69,5 41.0 #N/A , · , i 7 67.0 66.7 65.0 58.9 58.5 59.6 #N/A 69.3! 52.3'#N/A 8 66.9 67,8 65,6 58,9 59,1 61.1 59.3 68.41 50.7'#N/A 9 67.4 67.5 65.9 60.2 58.9 59.6 59.4 68.3 47.0 57.1 10 67.61 67.8 65.9 58.3 58.8' 59.5 #N/A 68.5 46.5 #N/A 11 67.0 67.5 65.0 59.6 58.1 59.2 #N/A 68.5 47.1 #N/A ..... ,, 12 65.3 66.1 63,4 60,1 56.8 57.4 #N/A 66.9 45,3 #N/A , , ,, , 13 67.3 67.2 65.0 58.5 58.4 59.4 57.8 68.8 41.6 55.9 14 67.0 67.0,65.0 58.6 58.8 59'.8'#N/A' 68.'4 53.5 56.8 , 11 i iii 15 66.4 66.9164~7 58.2 59.2 59.8 #N/A 68.7 47.3 58.9 16 67.5 67.4 65.1 58.8 58.0 59.7 56.4 68.5 #N/A 55.8 17 67.3 66.9! 65,0' 61,2 58,1 60,0 #N/^ 68.5 #N/^ #N/^ 18 66.9 66.9 64.9 59.7 57.7 58.7 59.3 69.0 #N/A #N/A 19 65.5 66,0 .63,8~ 58,1 57,3 57.7 57.0 65,7 46.8 #N/^ i , ,1 i i , 20 66.7 66.7 66.3 59.0 58.6 60.0 #N/A 68.9 43.7 #N/A , , ..... 21 67,0 67.1 65,1 59,6 59,2 60,4 #N/^ 69.5 49,2 #N/^ i ill, , , i ii ii ii , 22 66.9 67.1 .65.2 #N/A 5,.8.8 #N/A #N/A 68.8 #N/A #N/A 23 67.0 68.1 65.9 60.1 59.3 59.7 60.3 69.0 52.6'#N/A ....... , , iii l 24 67.5 67,7 66,0 61,5 59,2 60.6 #N/A 68,4 50.2! #N/^ ii i ii 25 67.1 67.8 65.2 60.9 59.4 60.1 #N/A 68.8'#N/A 57.7 26 65,1 66,6 63.4 58,4 57,3 57,8 57.5 66,9 47,7 #N/^ ,, 27 66.5 '66.5 64.5 59.6 58.2 59.5 #N/A 68.3!42.3' #N/A ,,, , 28 67.1 67.1 65,4 59,1 59,2 60,9 #N/^ 69,1 #N/^ 59,9 , ,, 29 66.8 67.2 65.2 58.1 58.9 59.6 #N/A 68.9'49.2 #N/A 30 67.1 67.0 65,2 60.1 58.9 60.6 59.3 69,2 46,9! #N/^ ,, , 31 67.0 67.1 64.9 58.8 59.4 60.0 #N/A 69.6 47.4 #N/A I I I I III I I Days 31 31 31 30 31 30 14 31 24 8 En.Avg 66,9 67.1 65.1 59.3 58.6 59,7 58.3' 68.6 48.9 5~.9 #N/A indicates insufficient data. -8- TABLE 5 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION September 2000 Date NMS Site lS 28 38 4~ 58 68 78 8N ON 10N" = , 5'1 1 66.8 67.2 64,8 60.2 59.3 59,5#N/~ 69.4 41.6 58. 2' 65.0 66.1 62.7 60.6 56.7 57.5 #N/A 66.2 #N/A 53.7 3 63.9 64.7 62.2 56.6 56.0 56.6 58.6 66.8 #N/A 53.5 ~ , 4 66.6 67.0~ 64.6 58.1 57.9 59.5 .59.7 68.6 53.7 55.3 5 66.7 66.4 64.6 59.4 58.4 59.0 59,5 68.1 53.5 57.3 , , , ,, ,, 6 66.4 #N/^ 64.5 58.2 57.6 58.8 58.7 68.3 54.6 56.0 7 66.8 #N/A 65.1 57.1 57.8 58.9 57.2 68.3 52.9 56.2 8 67.3 67.5 64.7 58.6~ 57.7 58.3 59.2 68.4 49.0. 56.1 , 9 64.9 65.3 62.5 55.3 55.7 58.3 55.8 66.0'54,1 53.6 , , , 10 67.2 67.1 64.6 57.4 57.5 59.0 58.8 68.1 45.4 55.3 11 67.3 '#N/A 63.9 56.7 56.2 #N/A 56.1 67.4;#N/^ 54.0 , 12, 65.3 65.4 63.1 56.3 56.5 58.3 57.7 68.0 51.91 55.4 13 66.5 66.1 64.0 58.6 57.4 #N/A #N/A 69.1 #N/A 57.3 14 67.5 68.0 65'4 59.1 59.2 #N/A 5913 69.0 52.7 57.5 , ,, ,, , ,, , , 15 67.6 #N/~ 65.0 58.0 58.0 59,0 56.7 68.3 51.6 56,5 16 65.1 #N/A 62.2 #N/A 56.3 #N/A #N/A 65.3 54.0 51.0 ,, ,, 17 66.91 #N/^ 64.8 57.8 57.8 59.31 #N/~ 68.2 462 55.2 , , ,, , 18 66.6 66.6 64.4 58.0 58.5 60.4 57.9 68.5 #N/A 57.3 , 19 66,7 66.5 64,7 60.0 58.3'61.3 57,3 69.1 53,9 58.1 ,, , 20 66.8 66.2 64.9 59.7 59.0 60.0 #N/^ 69.9 46.2 59.3 21 67.1 67.2 65.1 60.1 59.2' 60.8 #N/A 69.4 #N/A #N/A · · 22 66.6 66.9 64.5 60.1 58.8 605 57.2 70.3:49.1 #N/A , , 23 64.3 64.3 62.3 60.0! 56.6 59.7 55.2 67.1 #N/A 53.9 24 66.9 66.7 64.7 57.8 58.6 59.9 #N/~ 68.9 48.4 55.9 , , ,, 25 67.3 67.1 65.0 58.5 58.2 61.1 56.6 68.3 5110! 57.1 , ,, 26 66.3 66.0 64.1 60.0 58.0 59.7 #N/^ 68.6 49.8 59.0 27 66.4 66.6 64.3 60.5 58.4 59.8 #N/A 69.1 42.1 #N/A 28 67.2 67.4 64.9 59.2 58.9 60.0 58.8 69.4 49.8 58.8 29 67.6 66.9 66.2 61.7 59.2 61.6 59.0 69.6 44.1 58.5 30 65.2 65.3' 63.1 57.5 57.1 59.3 58.8 '66.0 #1~/A 55.3 i Days 30 24 30 29 30 26 20 30 22 27 E.n..Avg 66.5 66.5 64.3' 5,.8.957.9 59.6 58.1 '68.4 5112 56.6 #N/A indicates insufficient data. -9- TABLE 6 MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS Commercial Class A July - September 2000 Carrier ' ACTyp~ # Deps ...... ,. NMSSite ' ' .., ' " 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S "8N 9N 1 ON Al~SkaAir ' B7374" 392 Average 95.1 94.9 91.8 85.1 86.4 86.:~ 84.0 93.9i #N/A 78.4 Count (386) (386) (388) (387) (391) (390) (382) (1) (0) (1) AmeriCa West A320 ' 5 Average §4.1 93.8 90.9~ 85.~ 83.4 84.9 82.4 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (5)' (5) (4) (5) (5) (5,) (3) (0) (0) (0) B7373 ' 4 A{/erage 92.9 93.5 89.91 83.1 84.1 83.3 81.8 #N/A #N/A #N/A, Count (4) (4) (4) (4) (4.) (4) (4) (0) (0) (0) B757 74 Average 95.0 95.8 91.4 85.3 84.0 '84.4 81.5 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (73) (72) (73) (73) (72) (74) (63) (0) (0) (0) American B7378 49 Average 89'.7 90.1 86.1 81.§ 80.6 81'.1 '~8.8 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (49) (49) (49) (48) (49) (49) (38) (0) (0) (0) B75~ 375 Average 93.3 93.7 91.3 85.7 85.2 86.6 84.'~ #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (373) (.368) (370) (369) (367) (369) (363) (0), (0)~ (0) MD80 569Average 100.1 100.3 98.7 92.01 92.5 93.6 90.71 101.6 79.4~ 86.6 Count (562) (544) (558) (561) (564) (561) (543)1 (5) (1)~ (3) MD90 1 Average 88.7 89.3 85.6 79.6 76.6 79.5 77.2 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)' (0)' (0) (0) Continental B7§73 '231 ~Average 95.6 "'~4.9 93.9 87..5 87.2 88.6 85.0 94.8' 80.7 81.3 Count (211) (207) (214) (2!3) (215) (212) (213) (16)~ (4) (13.,) B7377 250 Average 95.3 94.9 92.4 85.7 84.7 86.4 83.3 96.3 79.7 80.5 Count (219) (214) (.218) (218) !219) (217) (213) (29) (4) (12) Delta ' ~37373 "' I Average 92.9 92.7 89.5 84.3 81.5 82.7 80.2 #N/A #N/A #N/A, iCount (1) (1) (!.) (1) (1..)i (1) (!) (0) (0) (0)! B757 "' 268 Average" 95.1 94.9 93.1 85.1 84.7 85.8 82.6 ' 93.0 81.5 79.2 Count (263) .(258) (263.) (263) (263/ (262) (256) (4) (1). (2) .... MD90 I Average 86.9 87.9! 85.2 77.2 #N/A 81.1 78.7 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (1 ) (1 ) , (1) (1 ) (0) (1 ) (1 )' (0) (0) (0) FedEx A300 16 Average "~4.3 94.5 '9'2.3 87.7 ' 85.9 '86.7 83.8 #N/A #N/A #N/A . Count (16) (16) (16): (16) (16} (16)! (16) (0) (0) (0) A310 44 Average 98.7 98.3 96.9 91.1 90.6 91.6! 88.5 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (44) (44)~ (44)' (44) (44) (44) (43) (0) (0) (0) NOrthwe'st ' A320 357 Average '95.8 95.4 ' 931'8 87.1 '"85.4 86.6~ 83.2 '94.3 77.4 "7~'.1 Count (334) (323) (334) (334) (336) (332) (321) (21) (2)! (3) SoUthwest B7~73 '172 Average 93.8 93.9 90.5 '84.4 85.4 86.0 83.0 #N/A: #N/A #N/A Count (170) (16.6..)(170) (170) (171) (171) (170) (0): (0) (0) B7377 "' 8 Average 91.3 91.8 87.0 81.9 81.3 82.4 85.8 '#N/A #N/A #N/A Count (8) (7) (8) (7) (8) (7) (8) (0) (0) (0) 'I~A 'B757 257; Average 93.9 93.8 90.'6 83.2 83.5 84.3 81.61 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (256) (249) (255) (254) (255) (256) (239)~ (0)! (0) (0) Unit(~;c::l A3~0 I Avel~'~ge 93.0 92.4 91.7 87.0 84.2 87.3 '83.2 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count . (1) (1):. (,1,)I . (1) (1) (1) (1) (0) (0) (0) B7373 124 Average 95. i 94.8 92.6 86.3 86.2 87.2 84.4~ #N/A #N/A #N/A ,Count (124) (122) (12,3) (123) (124) (122) .(122) (0) (0) (0) B757 90 ,Average 93.9 93.9 91.6 84.7 84.5 86.1 83.2~ 94.0 #N/A #N/A Count (88) (86)i (87)~ (87) (89) (89) (86)' (1) (0) (0) UPS B757 ' 63~Average 94.0 94.3 91.7 '"85.6 .... 85.2 86.5 83.3 #N/A #NJA #N/A Count (63) (63): (62) (63) (63) (63) (61) (0) (0) (0)~ US Airways' A319 ~3 /{.verage 94.4 93.7i 93.7 86.0 84.5 86.5 83.8 92,6 #N/A '81.9 Count (164) (165) (168)! (165) (167) (167) (165) (15) (0) (8) ,1, i! ii i i iiiii i -10- TABLE 7 MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS Commercial Glass AA July - September 2000 Carrier AC Type # Deps NMS Site 1S 2S 3S 4S 5.S 6S 7S 8N 9N 1ON Alaska Air B7374 ~1 Average 93.5 93.8 90.0 83.9 85.8 85.0! 82.6 #N/A! #N/A #N/A Count (11) (11) (11) (11) (11)' (11) (11) (0) (0). (0) B7377 168 Average 90.7 91.1 87.1 81.4 82.9 82.7 80.9 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (166) (163) (166) (168) (167) (166) (156) (0) (0) (0) America West A320 267 Average 91.8 92.1 89.3 84.6 82.5 83.2 81.7. #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (265) (261) (265) (.264) (259) (264) (174)~ (0) (0) (0) B7373 509 Average 93.4 93.5 90.3 84.8 84.4 85.4 82.9 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (508), (498) (506) (507) (506) (499) (498) (0) (0) (0) B757 2iAverage 92.7 93.4 87.9 82.4 79.6 80.4= 75.8 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (2) (2) (2) (2) (1): (2) (1) (0) (0) (0) American B757 714 Average 92.1 92.4~ 90.3 84.6. 84.2 85.5 83.1 87.8 #N/A: #N/A Count (709) (686) (703) (705) (7,02) (706) (664) (1) (0) (0) MD90 ' 172 Average 87.8 88.3 86.4 81.2 79.4 80.6 78.9 #N/A #N/A #N/A, Count (172i (171) (172) (162) (144) (170) (123). (0) (0) (0): Continental .B7377 166 Average 92.7 93.0 89.8 84.2 82.9 84.0 82.1 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (161) (162) (166) (163) (166) (158) (157) (0) (0) (0) Delta MD90 351 Average 91.6 91.6 89.7: 82.1 '82.2 84.2. 82.9 92.9. 82.1 78.9 Count (347). (344) (347) (314) (326)~ (337) (322) (3) (2)~ (1) Southwest B7373 177 Average 92.7 93.0 '89'.8 84.5 85.0 85.(~ 82.8 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (176) (173) (176) (176) (177) (1.73) (175) (0) (0) (0) B7377 5 Average 90.2 90.8 86.7 79.5 81.0 81.2 79.9 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (4)~ (0) (0) (0), United A320 346 Average ~1.0 91.3~ 90.1 8'4.7 " 83.~t 85.0 83.7 #N/A #N/,~ #N/A Count (346) (334) (344) (341) (345) (341) (341) (0) (0) (0) B757 ' 162 Average 93.5 93.5 90.8 83.7 83.6 84.9 82.8 94.1 #N/A #N/A Count (161) (159) (160) (159) (161) (159) (159) (1) (0) (0) i MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS Commercial Class E July - September 2000 ,, i Carrier AC Type # Deps NMS site ~ ilS 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8N"' 9N 10N Alaska Air B7377 613 Average 89.4 90.0 86.7 80.6 82.6 82.2 80.1~ 94.1 80.2 82.6 Count (609) (590) (604) (594) (610) (605) (569) (2) (1) (2) America West B7373 834 Average 91.7 92.1 88.7 83.9 83.6 84.2 81.9 89.9 77.3 #N/A Count (825) (810) (824) (822) (828) (823) (791) (1), (1) (0) i American B757 17 Average 88.9 89.2 87.7 82.2 82.3 82.2 79.9 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (17) (17) (17) (15) (15) (17) (14) (0) (0) (0) MD90 634 Average 88.3 88.6 86.3 81.4 79.2 80.7 79.8 #N/A ~fN/A #N/A Count (632) (615) (626) (594) (555) (603) (360) (0) (0) (0) Delta MD90 177 Average ~1.3 91.4 89.4 82.2 82.2 84,3 82.0 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (177) (167) (177). (165) (159)' (171) (158) (0) (0) (0). Southwest B7373 850 Average 92.0 92.4 89.2 84.1 84.5 85.1 82.4 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (845) (837) (846)~ (844) (850) (837) (826)I (0) (0) (0) B7377 22 Average 89.7 90.2 85.9 80.5 81.0 80.8 78.4 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (22) (22) (22) (19) (22) (22) (17) (0) (0) (0) United B757 619 Average 91.6 91.9 88.8'82.7 82.2 83.9 82.4 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (608) (598) (619) (605)= (597) (608) (591) (0) (0) (0) i ii -11- TABLE 8 MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS Commuter July - September 2000 Carrier AC Type' # Deps '" NMS Site ' ' ' , 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8N 9N 10N SkyWest CL60 90 AVerage 8~5.:~ 83.9 87,7 '78.8 79'.0 79.9 77.2 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (89) (84) (89) (27) (21) (83) .(3) (0) (0) (0) E120 1305 Average 80.4 82.8 81.8! 82.9 83.3 '78.6 84.7 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (1276) (1251) (1233) (81)(851) (1152) (134) (0) (0)! (0) I III I MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS General Aviation July - September 2000 Carrier ' :AC T~,pe # Dep~ ....... NMS Site ' ' 1S 2S 3S '4S 5S 6S 7S 8N '"9N 10N General Aviation J~t 2041 Average 89.8 89.1 90.6 85.2 84.5 85.1 84.9 84.3 #N/A 81.1 Count (1789) (1774) (1745) (954) (801) (1494) (669) (13) (0) (1) i i i iii i i i ii i ii iiii -12- TABLE 9 AIR CARRIER OPERATIONAL HISTORY Carrier AC Type Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Alaska Air AS 87374 8,798 7,718 7,795 7,237 3,130' , , , 87377 1,090 4,101 MD80 220 4 America west AW 'A319 I 636 , A320 780 6 509 1,059 930 87373 15,284 14,152~ 11,917 11,986 8,295 8757 " 858 1,332 205 464 423. American AA 87378 2 98 8757 8,542 8,970 8,329 8,145 7',025~ MDB0 926 610 1,119 2,285 3,807 MD90 3,191 5,603 Continental CO 87373 (1) 2.,786 2,710 720, 24 2 87375 (1) . 1,995 2,061 1,639 87377 868 2,491 2,223 , 87378 16 .8757 659 724 298 ,, MD80 4 Delta DE 57373 '" 614 2 ' z~ 8757 1,452 2,202 2,117 1,585 i1583 MD90 2,944 3,058 3,836 4,218, 3,142 i FedEx FM A300 16~ 18 12 20 62 A310 484 486 496 487 310 i Northwest NW A319 9 425 A320 3,502 3,408 3,219 3',486 1,919. B~57 2 Reno Air QQ MD80 4,072 4,200 4,246 2,622 MD90 4,026 5,680 5,744 5,083 ' Southwest WN 87373/1) 9,918 9,846 2,986 1,358 1,136 87375 I1) 6,689 8,234!6,039 87377 2~ 129 208 TWA TW 8757 4~6 1,242 1,139 1,174 1,227 MD80 1,440 848i 986 894 314 United U~ A319t2) 749 1,035 433 A320 (2) .2,524 2,024! 1,816 1,196 1,358~ 87373 (!) 1,332 836 503 791 681 57375/1) 2 55 8757 7,766 8,274 8,617 8,290 5,602 UPS 5X 8757 '504 476 '500 502 384 usAirways us ~A319' ' 955 1,0~8 A320 11 2 , 87373 842 1,444 1,456 482 , , 8757 616 i (1) (2) Counts that separate B7373 and B7375 aircraft operations began in 1998. Counts that separate A319 and A320 aircraft operations began in 1998. -13- TABLE 10 AIRCRAFT OPERATION~ HISTORY Aircraft Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000- A300 16 18 12 20 62 A310 484 486 496 487 310 A319 (1) 749 2,1'11 2,582 A320 (1) 6,806 5,438 5,544 5,752 4,209 87373 (2) 30,776 28,990 17,582i 14,641 10,118 87374 8,798 7,718 7,795 7,237 3,130 B7375 (2) 8,686 10,350 7,678 87377 870 3,710 6,537 87378 18 98 8757 20,804~ 23,220 21,205 20,160 16,244 MD80 6,662 5,662 6,351 5,801 4,121 MD90 6,970 8,738 9,580 12,492 8,745 (1) Counts that separate A319 and A320 aircraft operations began in 1998. (2) Counts that separate B7373 and B7375 aircraft operations began in 1998. FIGURE 5 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL HISTORY ;5,000 ;0,000 :5,000 :0,000 5,000 0,000 5,000 0 A300 A310 A319 A320 87373 87374 87375 87377 87378 8757 MD80 MD90 By Year la 1996 la 1997 !'11998 i'11999 la2000 -14- TABLE 11 AIR CARRIER AVERAGE DAILY DEPARTURE HISTORY Carrier AC TYpe ' Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Alaska Air AS 87374 12.019~ 10.573 10.682 9.921 5.715 , 87377 1.490 7.482 MD80 0.301 0.005 America West AW A319 0.151 1.161 A320 1.066 0.008 0.688 1.452 1.697~ , ,,, , 87373 20.880 19.386: 16.351 16.425 15.128 8757' 1.172 1.825 0.279 0.~30 0.770 American AA 87378 0.003 0.1~9 8757 11.669 12.288 11.397 11.159~ 12.825 , MD80 1.265 0.836 1.551 3.148 6.953 MD90 4.359 10.2'19 Continental CO 87373(~1) 3.806 3.712' 0.984 0.033 0.067 87375(1) 2.742 2.844 2.996 87377 1.184 3.392 4.047 87378 0.022 8757 0.900: 0.992 0.408 MD80 0;005 belta DE' B~373 0.839 0.003 0.06~ B7.57 1.984 3.016 2.899 2.'175 2.891 MD90 4.022 4.189 5.249 5.775 5.734 i i FedEx FM A300 0.022 0.025 0.016 0.027' 0.113 IA310 0.661 0.666 0.679 0~668 0.566 ' Northwest ~A319 0.014 0.774 ;A320 4.784 4.668 4.408 4.775 3.504 8757 0.003 Reno Air QQ MD80 '~.5~3 5.753 5.830 3.5{)7 " MD90 5.500 7.781 7.860 6.964 Southwest WN 87373 (.1) 13.549 13.488 4.088 1'.860 '2.077 B7375 (1) 9.167 11.296 11.015 87377 0.003 0.178 0.380 TWA TW 5757 0.555 1.701 1.564 1.627 2.241 MD80 1.967 1.162 '1.345 1.208 0.573 United UA A31912) 1.030 1.411 0.7~2, ,A320.(2/ 3.~448 2.773 2.488 1.647 2.464 57373 (1) 1.820 1.145 0.688 1.082 1.241 B7375 (11 0.003 0.016 B757 10.609 11.334 11.803 11.441 10.241 ii ii i UPS 5X 8757 0.689 0.652 0.685 0.688 0.701 i i USAirways US A319 1.310 1.985 ,, , A320 0.014 0.004 87373 1.150 1.978 1.995 0.660 8757 0.842 i i ii (1) Counts that separate B7373 and B7375 aircraft operations began in 1998. (2) Counts that separate A319 and A320 aircraft operations began in 1998. -15- NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Date: September 27, 2000 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Eddie Martin Building AGENDA ITEMS AND ITEMS DISCUSSED: 1. Airport Statistics Bonnie Streeter summarized the airport statistics report for August 2000. Year-to-date the airport has seen an increase in passenger traffic of approximately 7%. There continues to be a decline in total operations~, due primarily to a significant decline in general aviation traffic. 2. Status ,of the Santa Ana Heights Acoustical Insulation Program Carl Braatz began by noting that since taking over the management of the Acoustical Insulation Program (AIP), John Wayne Airport has overseen the insulation of 116 homes. Insulation of a 182-unit apartment building is slated for completion by June 2001. Additionally, AIP Phase-8 has 28 homes currently in the design stage and AIP Phase-9 is in the planning stages with nine interested homeowners. Rita Jones asked the following questions: Question: How many houses are still slated for Sound Attenuation? Answer: Carl stated that approximately 340 homes had been, or were in the process of being, completed. The total number of homes eligible for acoustical insulation under the AIP program is 507. Subtracting the total completed from the total eligible leaves 167 homes remaining to be insulated. Carl noted that of the remaining homes, some eligible homeowners had declined participation in the program or had not expressed an interest in participating. Question: What is the budget for the completion of the remaining homes and what is your remaining balance in this budget? Answer: Carl explained that the FAA provides funding for 80% of the project, and the County of Orange funds the remaining 20%. He said there is currently $9.8 million remaining of the FAA grant monies provided for the SAH AIP. Question; How many monitors do you have in the Santa Ana Heights area? Also, have there been any changes? -16- NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING (continued) Answer: John Leyerle explained that there are three noise monitoring stations located in the Santa Ana Heights area and that there have not been any recent changes to the locations of these monitors. Question: Are there plans for any more noise monitoring stations? Answer: John Leyefle answered that there are no plans for additional noise monitoring stations. He described ongoing plans to redesign the existing noise monitoring poles to allow easier access during the calibration process. He emphasized that there will be no changes to the noise monitoring equipment during this redesign of the poles. Question: Regarding the insulation of the apartment complex that is currently underway, how much is being spent for each apartment unit? Is it the same as would be spent for insulation of a residential home? Answer: Carl answered that the cost per apartment unit will be less than $10,000 each compared with the $38,500 budgeted for the insulation of residential homes in the AIP. · Ouestion: Does the original "65 CNEL" line still exist, or is there a new or modified line? Answer: John Leyede explained that the 65 dB CNEL contour line used to define eligibility for the SAH AIP is the projected 65 dB CNEL from the 1985 Master Plan, EIR 508. This contour represents the projected worst-case scenario for the twenty-year period covered by EIR 508. John Wayne Airport also plots the actual annual 65 .dB CNEL on a quarterly basis. These actual 65 dB CNEL contours are published in the Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Reports. John noted that the actual 65 dB CNELs have been consistently smaller than the projected 65 dB CNEL. Ouestion: Rita expressed concern over a newspaper article that appear in the L.A. Times on September 27, 2000, which stated that certain furnaces used in residential construction had been found to be defective. Rita asked if any of the furnaces referenced in the article had been used in the AIP. Answer: Carl Braatz stated that he had checked his records and verified that none of the furnaces referenced in the article had ever been used in any of the homes acoustically modified under the direction of John Wayne Airport. (Carl Braatz will be mailing letters to this effect to all homeowners whose homes were modified by John Wayne Airport). -17- NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING (continued) 3. Any additional questions Rita Jones asked the following questions' Question' Is the noise abatement role for takeoffs and landings still in effect between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.? Answer: Bonnie Streeter responded that general aviation aircraft could operate 24-hours a day. General aviation aircraft operating during the nighttime hours are required to meet the General Aviation Noise Ordinance nighttime noise limits. Commercial aircraft are not permitted to depart after 10:00 p.m., or arrive after 11:00 p.m. Question: If a small charter company, such as a corporate jet, is hired for a flight out of John Wayne Airport, is that type of flight categorized as "commercial"? Answer: Doris Mays answered that such a flight would be considered a general aviation operation. John Leyerle explained that three criteria must be met in order for a flight to be considered a commercial operation. The criteria are as follows: 1) flights available to members of the public; 2) flights scheduled to occur at specific times and days; and 3) flights that operate at a frequency greater than two times per week during any consecutive three week period. Question: Are the takeoff and landing patterns of smaller carriers, such as corporate or small charters, subject to similar rules as carriers such as United and Continental airlines? Answer: John Leyerle explained that John Wayne Airport has no control over flight paths. By Federal law, only the Federal Aviation Administration and the pilot-in-command are in control of aircraft in flight. The FAA and the pilot-in-command choose paths on the basis of safe and efficient movement of aircraft. After takeoff, low performance aircraft are directed by the FAA to the west or east, away from the runway heading, to clear the way for high performance aircraft which continue on the runway heading. Question: Is John Wayne Airport owned by the County of Orange, or is it leased by the County from a private entity? Answer: John Leyerle answered that John Wayne Airport is owned and operated by the County of Orange. -18- NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING (continued) 4. Tentative date for next meeting Ill The date for the next quarterly Noise Abatement Committee meeting will be announced by letter approximately two weeks before the meeting. 5. Brief demonstration of TAMIS live flight tracking ...disolay Rita Jones declined the invitation to view the TAMIS system at this meeting, but expressed interest in visiting the Access and Noise office at another time with other members of the PAC and ABCOM. -19- NAC ROSTER September 27, 2000 NAME ORGANIZATION Carl Braatz John Wayne Airport Ann Gill John Wayne Airport Tram Pham John Wayne Airport Rita Jones PAC and ABCOM John Escobedo John Wayne Airport Bonnie Streeter John Wayne Airport Doffs Mays John Wayne Airport Ramey Gonzalez John Wayne Airport John Leyerle John Wayne Airport -20- ,-ADMiNiSTR,ATiO,N,~,,- APR ]8 2OO] RECEIVED' · _ _ NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT For the period: October 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000 Prepared in accordance with: AIRPORT NOISE STANDARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA California Administrative Code Title 21, 'Chapter 2.5, SubChapter 6: Division of Aeronautics Noise Standards Alan L. Murphy/ Airport Director/ John Wayne Airport, Orange County INTRODUCTION This is the 112th Quarterly Report submitted by the County of Orange in accordance with the requirements of the California Airport Noise Standards (California Administrative Code Title 21, Chapter 2.5, SubChapter 6: Division of Aeronautics Noise Standards). Effective January 1, 1986, the criteria for defining "Noise Impact Area" was changed from 70 dB to 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Under this criteria, John Wayne Airport currently has a "Noise Impact Area." NOISE IMPACT SUMMARY Caltrans' Aeronautics Program has established guidelines in the California State Noise Standard to control residential area noise levels produced by aircraft operations using the State's airports. Under those guidelines, residential noise sensitive areas exposed to an average Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of more than 65 dB define the "Noise Impact Area." John Wayne Airport uses ten permanent remote noise monitoring stations (NMS) located in Newport Beach, Santa Ana, Tustin and Irvine to measure noise levels, at the following locations: MONITOR STATIONS NMS- 1 S: Golf Course, 3100 Irvine Ave., Newport Beach NMS-2S: 20152 S.W. Birch St., Santa Ana NMS-3S: 2139 Anniversary Lane, Newport Beach NMS-4S: 2338 Tustin Ave., Newport Beach NMS-5S: 324 V,- Vista Madera, Newport Beach NMS-6S: 1912 Santiago, Newport Beach NMS-7S: 1131 Back Bay Drive, Newport Beach NMS-8N: 17372 Eastman Street, lrvine NMS-9N: 1300 S. Grand Avenue, Santa Ana NMS-10N: 17952 Beneta Way, Tustin The map in Figure 1 shows the general location of each permanent remote monitor station. Figure 2 shows the Airport's "Noise Impact Area" for the previous year (January 1, 2000 - December 31, 2000). The Figure 2 information was developed by Mestre-Greve Associates, Inc., in consultation with John Wayne Airport. CNEL values measured for the period and current digitized land use information were utilized to calculate the land area acreages, number of residences and estimated number of people within the "Noise Impact Area". -1- FIGURE I , , JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT STATION LOCATION MAP 5 FREEvA¥ WAYNE IRPORT NGE UNTY ' NMS - NOISE MONITORING STATTON , m,, ,, , FIGURE 2 O Noise Monitors ~ Single Family Residential 65 dB CNEL Contour ~ Multi-Family Residential STATISITICS: N Incompatible Land Use Area: 17.1 Acres or .027 square miles ~ Number of Dwellings: 104 T Number of People: 260 (based on 2.5 people per dwelling unit) JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 65dB CNEL Impact Area January 2000- December 2000 Mez'tre Greve A.~ociates -3- AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC SUMMARY The Airport traffic summary for this quarter is shown in Table 1 and Figure 3 below. Air Carrier operational count histories and average daily departure counts are illustrated in Tables 9 & 11. TABLE 1 LANDING AND TAKEOFF OPERATIONS Octobor - Docombor 2000 Period Air Carriers GA Jet (1) Total Average Daily Jet Prop Operations (2) Jet Operations October 7,275 782 1,468 31,916 282 November 6,922 822 1,478 30,772 280 becember 6,990 773 1,409 28,803 271 Fourth Quarter 21,187' 2,377 4,355 91,491 278 Twelve Months 85,560 9,951 15,455 387,862 276 01/01/00 - 12/31/00 , FIGURE 3 QUARTERLY AIRPORT TRAFFIC SUMMARY (Landing and Takeoff Operations) Jet Carrier Military Prop Carrier GA Jet GA Other October - December 2000 21,187 93 li 2,377 1 4,355 62,417 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Number of Operations NOTE: (1) GA Jet figures include a 5% factor for operations not identified by the JWA noise monitor stations. (2) Counts in this column are based upon records provided by the local FAA representatives. COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVELS The monthly, quarterly and twelve month Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) average values for each monitor station are shown in Table 2, while daily CNEL values are shown in Tables 3 through 5. Insufficient data is indicated by "#N/A" entries in each table. Average Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL) values for Air Carrier and Business Jet aircraft are shown in Tables 6 through 8. For the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000, 104 dwelling units in Santa Ana Heights were -4- in the "Noise Impacted Area" (within the 65 dB CNEL contour); this represents an increase of one unit in the number of dwelling units in the "Noise Impacted Area" from the previous twelve month period ending September 30, 2000. The State has approved several remedies of aircraft noise levels for noise sensitive property in the "Noise Impact Area": homes can be acoustically insulated, purchased by the County, or rezoned for "other non-noise sensitive uses." As part of the County's Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program, approximately 77 general agriculture (A-1) properties with residential land uses on Orchard, Acacia and Birch Streets were rezoned for Business Park Use in October, 1986. Each property was individually sold and subsequently converted to compatible land use. Between 1986 and 1993, 124 residences have been purchased or otherwise made compatible through the County's Purchase Assurance Program, Acoustical Insulation Program or Housing Relocation Program. In September 1993, the FAA approved a grant to fund a voluntary Accelerated Acoustical Insulation Program (AAIP) in Santa Ana Heights. (The current AAIP has been renamed "Santa Ana Heights Acoustical Insulation Program" with the acronym "SAH AIP".) During the fourth quarter of 2000, no additional residences have been made compatible through the County's SAH AIP. A total of 267 residences in Santa Ana Heights have been purchased or otherwise made compatible through the County's Purchase Assurance Program, Housing Relocation Program, Acoustical Insulation Program or SAH AIP. TELEPHONE COMPLAINT CALLS (October 1, 2000 - December 31,, 2000) The Airport's Access and Noise Office receives and investigates noise calls and complaints from local citizens and all other sources. During the period October 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000, the Office received 313 complaints from citizens. This is a 52.6% decrease from the 660 complaints received last quarter. It is a 12.6% decrease from the 358 complaints received during the same quarter last year. Figure 4 shows the distribution of the quarterly telephone calls and complaints from local communities. FIGURE 4 HISTOGRAM BY COMMUNITY 60 50 40 30 20 50 24 28 22 21 10 16 17 15 17 11 Community One household was responsible for 80% of the 54 complaints from Balboa Penninsula. -5- TABLE 2 LONG TERM MEASURED LEVELS Aircraft CNEL from 1/00 through 12/00 Values in dB at Each Site ,,, Period NMS Site 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8N 9N 10N ~, , Jan 2000 66.2 66.1 64.8 59.3 58.2 59.9 57.0 68.0 51.7 56.6 # Days 31 31 31 29 31 31 21 31 29 27 Feb 2000 66.9 66.5 65.3 59.9 59.1 60.3 57.6 68.6 52.8 57.4 # Days 28 28 28 25 26 23 13 16 14 18 Mar 2000 66.7' 66.4 65.1 59.9 59.2 60.6 57.7 68.6 #N/A 57.9 # Days 31 29 281 271 30 21 20 19 0 21 Q-1 2000 66.6 66.3 65.0: 59.7 58.8 60.2 57.4 68.3 52.1 57.3 # Days 90 88 87 81 87 75 54 66 43 66 Apr 2000 66.7 66.8 65.0 60.5 59.1 #N/A 57.8 68.8 57.0 58.2 # Days 30 30 29 22 27 0 21 29 7 20 May 2000 66.9 67.1 65.3 60.5 59.0 #N/A 57.5 68.7 51.2 57.4 # Days 31 30 30 15 25 0 23 30 18 16 Jun 2000 66.8 67.0 65.1 60.7 59.1 #N/A 57.8 68.9 51.0 58.2 # Days 30 23 30 14 26 0 24 28 18 14 Q-2 2000 66.8 67.0 65.2 60.5 59.1 #N/A 57.7 68.8 52.8 58.0 # Days 91 83 89 51 78 0 68 87 43 50 Jul 2000 66.6 66.8 65.1 60.1 58.4 60.2 57.51 68.8 50.6 57.3 ..~ Days 31 30 30 24 31 25~ 26 27 25 11 Aug 2000 66.9! 67.1 65.1 59.3 58.6 59.7~ 58.3 68.6 48.9 57.9 ~# Days , 31 31 31 ,30 31 30, 14' 31 24 8 $ep 2000 66.5~ 66.5 64.3 58.9 57.9 59.6 58.1 68.4 51.2 56.6 !# Days 30 24 30 29 30 26 20 ,30 22 27 Q-3 2000 66.7 66.9 64.9 59.4 58.3 59.8 57.9 68.6 50.3 57.0 # Days 92 85 91 83 92 81 60: 88 71 46 Oct 2000 67.0 67;. 1 64.9 59.2 58.6 60.0 58.2, 68.6 51.1 57.5 # Days 31 31 31 31 30 26 23 29 25 22 Nov 2000 66.4 66.6 64.7! 58.4 57.9 59.5 57.2 68.0 52.2 56.6 # Days 30 30 30 28 30 24 22 30 21 24 Dec 2000 66.3 65.9 64.7 58.2 57.4 59.6 58.0 67.5 51.0 56.2 # Days 31 30 31 31 31 30 10 31 23 29 Q-4 2000 66.6 66.5 64.7~ 58.6 58.t) 59.7 57.8 68.1 51.4 56.7 # Days 92 91 92 90 91 80 55~ 90 69 75 I Q-1 2000 thru Q-4 2000 Total I 66'71 66.7 65.0 59.5 58.5 59.9 57.7 68.5 51.6 57.2 # DaysI 3651 347 359 305 348 236 , 237 331 226 237 Q-4 1999 thru Q-3 2000 (Previous 4 Quarters) Total 166.51 66.51 65.0 59.61 58.4 60.0 57.6 68.3: 51.9 57.0 #Days! 35,51 3451, 3,,S, 9 304 348 245, 250 329: 219 248 Change from Previous 4 Quarters . I . o. 1 0; 1 o.o -o.1. ,o.! .-o.1 0.2 -0..3 0.2 -6- TABLE 3 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION October 2000 Date NMS site 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8N 9N 10N ,, , 1 66.8 67.0 64.4 57.8 57.8 59.7 58.2 68.5 42.8 56.9 2 67.0 66.8 64.9 58.7 58.7 59.6 58.8 69.2 48.1 57.5 .. 3 66.6 66.7 64.3 58.4 57.7 59.6 #N/A 69.2 50.7 #N/A , 4 67.1 67.0 64.7 59.0 59.1 61.4 #N/A 69.1 48.0 58.7 ~ , 5 67.2 67.5 65.2 58.7 59.1 60.8 57.9 69.5 51.4 #N/A 6 67.6 67.8 64.9 58.6 58.9 59.7 56.1 69.3 48.9 #N/A 7 65.1 64.3 62.4, 57.6 56.4 57.9 57.7 65.9 #N/A 55.6 , 8 66.6! 66.6 64.5 58.5 58.1 59.8 56.2 68.8 49.3 57.8 9 67.0 67.1 64.4 59.3 58.6 59.5 56.1 69.4 50.7 #N/A , 10 66.7 66.7 64.0 60.9 59.0 59.3:59.1 69.3 48.5 #N/A 11 66.9 67.0 64.9 60.3 59.2 60.2 58.7 68.8 52.3 58.0 12 67.8 67.9 65.5 60.4 59.6 60.5 #N/A 69.1 51.6 58.2 13 67.8 67.9 65.1 59.6 58.9 59.9 58.3 68.5 53.1 57.9 , , 14 64.9 67.0 63.1 57.6 57.2 57.6 58.8 66.1 50.5 57.2 15 67.9' 68.0 65.6 59.4 59.4 60.4 58.5 68.9: 52.4 56.9 , ,, 16, 67.6 67.6 65.5 58.2! 58.8 60.0 55.3 68.7 53.7 59.2 ,, i i , i 17 66.4 66.7.64.4 59.3 59.1 60.0 #N/A 69.3 53.9 #N/A , 18 68.0 67.8 66.4 59.1 58.9 60.8 58.0 69.3 51.1 #N/A , 19 67.7 67.6 65.7 59.2 #N/A 60.8 57.5 69.1 52.3 58.3 20 67.7 67.7 64.5 56.9 56.5 58.6' 56.4 69.3 42.5 58.7 21 65.2, 64.9 62.9 58.8 56.7 59.0 59.4 66.5 #N/A 55.0 22 66.4 65.8 68.1 57.4 57.9 #N/A 57.7' 64.6 #N/A 52.4 23 66.7 66.3 64.9 59.0 58.2 #N/A 59.7 68.2 #N/A 56.9 24 66.0 66.5~ 64.0' 58.3 58.5 #N/A 57.3 68.1 47.8 56.0 25 67.2 67.2 64.9 59.1 58.7 60.5 #N/A 68.9 #N/A 57.3 26 67.9 68.1 66.0 60.7 60.1 61.9 #N/A #N/A 50.4. #N/A 27 67.9 67.0 65.5 61.6 58.7 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A , 28 64.8 65.5 62.3 58.0 56.8 58.9 58.7 66.8 52.4 54.8 29 67.1 67.6 65.1 61.2 59.6 60.7 59.5 70.0 50.8 59.9 30 67.0 67.4 65.0 58.6 59.4 61.3 #N/A 68.2: 49.7 56.9 31 66.2 67.3 64.5 59.2 58.2 #N/A 59.6 68.9 54.9 58.1 Days 31 31 31 31 30 26 23 29 25 22 En.Avg 67.0 67.1 64.9 59.2 58.6 60.0 58.2 68.6 51.1 57.5 #N/A indicates insufficient data. -7- TABLE 4 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION November 2000 Date NM'S Site lS 2S 38 48 5S 6S 7.8 8N' ON ioN" , ,, I 67.4 67.3 65.0 58.8 59.1 #N/A #N/A 68.3 52.5 56.3 , 2 68.1 68.1 65.4 60.1 58.9 #N/A 58.2 68.1 #N/A 55.2 , , 3 62.0 62.2 68.0 53.7 52.8 #N/^ 52.1 64.4 56.9 54.2 ' 4 62.2 62.9 62.0 55.0!53.9 58.0 #N/A 68.2 58.9 53.1 , 5 6710 66.8 64.8 59.3 59.2 60.6 #N/^ 69.1 54.6 58.2 , 6 67.4, 67.4 65.5 60.2 59.4 61.3 #N/A 68.3 48.6 58.2 , , 7 63.9 63.7 66.2 57.0 54.8 #N/A 58.9 64.8 53.1 53.8 , , , 8 66.7 66.8 64.4 59.1 59.0 59.1 #N/A 69.6 #N/A 58.2 ~, , 9 67.5 67.6 65.51#N/~ 60.4 61.3 #N/^ 69.5 50.3 58.8 , , 10 67.1 67.4i 65.1 59.8 59.8 59.9 #N/A 69.2 45.9 57.3 , 11 65.0 66.31 63.1 59.5 57.2 58.4 57.2 66.1 #N/A 53.6 , 12 66.9 67.7 63.8 57.4 57.8 58.3 59.4 68.0 49.0 55.9 13 65.9 66.4 63.6 57.6 57.4 58.6 55.8 68.1 49,1 56.1 ,, , , , 14 65.3 66.5 64.1 58.5 57.7 #N/A 57.6 68.9 #N/A 57.8 15 67.1 67.2 64.8 58.9 59.1 59.5 56.71 69.0 #N/A 57.6 16' 67.7 67.9 65.9 #N/A 59.7 60.5 #N/A 69.3 #N/A 57.2 17 62.9 62.7 63.7 56.2 53.9 60.2 51.3 65.9 #N/A 54.4 18 62.4 63.5 61.3 53.2 54.0 57.0 57.2 65.4 #N/A 50.3 19 66.1 66.3 63.2 55.6 55.6 57.5 55.7 67.1 39.9 52.5 20 65.7 65.4 62.6 56.0 55.2 58.6 54.2 67.5 51.7 54.0 , , 21 67.5 67.6, 64.8 58.8 58.0 62.0 58.2 69.1 53.3 57.3 22 67.9 67.6 655 61.2 59.8~#N/A 58.9 69.1 50.0 #N/A = 23 64.8 64.8 62.3 57.9 56.1 56.7 55.0 65.1 49.5 #N/^ , , 24 64.5 65.6 62.6 58.5 57.0 57.7 58.8 66.3 50.9 #N/A 25 66.4 66,5 63.6 57.1 56.8 57.7 55.3 65.7 #N/A #N/^ 26: 67.9 68.2 65.6 57.8 58.5 59.4 56.5 69.1 45.5 #N/A , 27 68.3 68.2 65.9 60.0 59.2 60.4 59.6 68.3 48.2 59.3 28 66.5 66.3 64.5 58.4 57.3 59.8 55.9 68.7 52,1 57.9 29 67.3 67.5 64.9 60.3 59.0 59.8 57.9 68.6 52.6 #N/^ , 30 67.0 67.2 65.1 58.6 58.7 60.0 57.7 68.8 46.4 58.0 i Days 30 30 30 28 30 24: 22 30 21 24 En.Avg 66.4 66.6 64.7 58.4 57.9 59.5 57..2 68.0 52.2 56.6 #N/A indicates insufficient data. -8- TABLE 5 DAILY CNEL VALUES AT EACH MONITOR STATION December 2000 , , Date NMS Site lS 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8N 9N 10N 1 67.5 67.7 65.4 59.5 58.3 59.1 #N/^ 69.0 47.3 58.3 , 2 65.1 65.1 63.3 57.1 57.0 56.6 58.0 66.8 #N/A 56.0 , , 3 66.6 66.1 64.5 57.4 57.9 58.6 58.8 68.5 39.2 57.6 4 66.3 65.8 64.7 58.3 57.6 59.5 57.8 67.7 53.2 56.0 ,,, 5 66.9 65.9 63.7 58.2 57.5 60.0 #N/^ 67.6 #N/^ 56.7 , , 6 67.5 66.9 64.6 58.1 57.8 59.4 #N/A 67.2:#N/A 56.7 7 67.5 67.9 65.5 59.2 58.8 60.6 #N/^ 69.1 50.4 58.2 , 8 66.9 66.9 64.4 59.5 58.8 60.0 #N/A 68.9 47.2 #N/A 9 64,7 64.9 63.2 58.3 57.9 58.2 #N/^ 66.6 #N/^ 56.2, , i~ i , 10 66.9 67.2 64.9 58.9 58.7 59.3 #N/A 69.0 49.7 57.0 11 66.4 66.8 64.4 58.8 58.7 61.1 #N/^ 68.5 47.3 58.1 12 66.1 66.5 64.2 58.6 58.8 60.4 58.7 68.1 49.6 57.7 13 67.0166.5 64,8 60.3 58.8 60.7 #N/^ 67.8 51.5 58.5 ! 14 67.4 67.3 65.3 60.2 59.3 61.4 #N/A 69.5 51.1 58.6 , , , 15 67.8 67.9 65.8 60.1 60.3i 61.1 59.8 69.6 51.2 #N/^ 16 64.9 64.5 63.8 56.3' 55.3 58.3 #N/A 63.9 #N/A 51.0 17 65.7 66.7 67.5 58.6 55.7 63.2 57.8 63.6 #N/^ 50.8 , 18 59.7 60.4 65.9 53.7 44.8 61.0 #N/A 62.0 48.1 47.6 ,, 19 65.1 #N/^ 62.3 55.1 54.3 56.1 #N/^ 67.5 49.9 54.4 20, 67.5 64.4 65.2 59.0 57.5 58.9 #N/A 68.9 50.5 54.9 21 67.9 64.8 65.2 59.1 58.4 60.9 #N/A 69.3 52.0 59,0 22 67.2166.1 64.8 58.1 58.5 59.3 #N/A 67.1 51.6 56.8 23 66.2 65.7 63.1 57.8 56.9 57.3 #N/A 67.4 #N/^ 56.8 24 63.6 63.9 64.8 55.4 55.2 55.8 56.3 63.3 47.0 53.1 25 59.0 57.4 66.7 57.4 50.3 #N/A #N/A 59.7 53.0 55.7 26 66.5 65.9 64.9 57.8 56.7 60.3 #N/A 66.5 53.6 50.4 , 27 66.4 64.6 63.5 57.0 56.3 58.6 57.9 67.0 53.1 53.3 28 65.8 63.8 62.8 56.8 55.8 58.4 #N/A 67.2 54.4 54.0 , 29 67.2 65.8 64.1 58.8 57.0 59.0 57.2 67.4 54.0 54.6 ~ ,, 30 64.8 65.1 62.0 56.2 55.1 57.8 #N/~ 66.3 #N/~ 54.8 31 66.5 66.3 64.3 57.3 57.8 58.0 56.5 67.1 47.4 55.4 , Days 31 30 31 31 31 30 10 31 23 29 En.Avg 66.3 65.9 64.7 58.2 57.4 59.6 58.0 67.5 51.0 56.2 #N/A indicates insufficient data. -9- TABLE 6 MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS Commercial Class A October - December 2000 'Carrier AC Type # Deps . NMS Site 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S '6S 7S 8N81. 9N7 I'0N Alaska Air B7374 487 Average 95.6 {)5.2~ 92.0 85.0 86.7 86.2 84.8 91.6 80.5 Count (441) (4o,5) (436) (436) (439) (433) (430) (43)i (28) (24) B7377 3 Average 90.7 91.3 87.2' 80.8 83.3 82.9 80.9 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (3) (3) (3)' (3) (3) (3) (3) (0) (0) (0) America West A320 64 Average §3.4 93.3 90.1' 85.7 83.7 84.4 82.6 87.6 #N/A 78.0 Count (55) (51) (56) (55) (54) (54) (51) (8) (0) (3) B73~3 I Average 97.1 95.9 92.7 84.5 86.8 89.7 86.8 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (0) (0) (0): , B757 23 ,Average 95.1 95.8 91.5 85.0 83.8 84.8 82.3 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (16) (0) (0) (0) American B7378 27~ Average '96.2 95.1 92.5 86.4 85.5 87.2 85.4 b2.0: 81.'8 81.2 Count (247) (219) (237) (241) (242) (237) (229) (33) (19) (17) B757 105 Average 92.3 92.3 90.2 84.5 84.6 85.6 83.8 86.2 76.4 76.3 Count (101) (96) (102) (101) (102) (102) (99) (3) (1) (1) ~, , MD80 562' Average 99.3 99.3 97.6 91.2 91.3 92.4 89.7 97.9 86.0 85.9 Count (499) (443) (497) (498) (498) (492) (483) (44) (51) (44) MD90 8 Average 86.8 87.5 85.4 80.4 79.1 79.5 77.3 86.2 77.4 #N/A Count (6) (6) (5) (4) (5) (6) (2) (2) (1 ) (0) Continenial B7373 195 Average 95.7 "94.8 93.5 87.0 86.9 88.1 84.7 93.3 81.5 82.4 Count (147) (128) (147) (147) (147) (146) (148) !39) (24) (25) B7377 317 Average 94.4 94.0 91.2 84.8 84.2 85.4 83.4 93.6 81.2 80.5 Count (273) (259) (264) (271) (271) (268) (262) (39) (29) (21) Delta ~B757 251 Average 94.7 94.4 92.1 85.2 84.7 85.2 82.'~ 90.8" 77.7 79.8 Count (225) (207) (223) (225) (226) (220) (221) (25) (5) (9) i FedEx A300 10 Average 94.6i 94.6 91.9 87.7 86.2 86.7 83.6 #N/A' #N/A #N/A Count (10); (10) (10) (10) (.10) (10) ..(10) (0) (0) (0) A310 47 Average 98.7= 98.1 96.3 91.0 90.1 91.6 88.3 93.2 #N/A #N/A Count (46) (44) (44) (45) (46) (46) (45) (1) (0) (0) Northwest A320 346.Average 95.4 94.8 93.0 87.2 85.5 86.3 83.3 92.6 79.7 82.2 'Count (274) (252) (275) (272) (274) (271) (265) (68) (20) (19) Soutfiwest B7373 173 Average 94.4 94.0 90.7 84.9 85.8 86.5 83.5 91.3 80.2 79.9 Count (154) (146) (152) (155) (154) (151) (155) (15) (14) (11) B7377 6 Avera~le 91.9 92.8 86.2 79.5 81.9 81.3 79.3 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (6) (4) (6) (4) (5) (6) (5) (0) (0) (0) TWA B757 252Average 9310 92.8 89.4 83.1 83.2 84.0 81.3 87.5 80,2 79.3 Count (218) (197) (218) (215) (217) (214) (208) (30) (11) (13) United A320 6 Average 91.9 92.0 90.4 84.6 83.9 84.9 84.5 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (5) (0) (0) (0) B7373 99Average 95.1 94.6 92.4 86.3 85.9 86.8 83.8 90.6 80.4 79.6 Count (92) (83) (92) (90) (91) (91) (88) (7) (2) (4) B757 41 Average 93.3 93.2 90.6 83.7 84.1 85.0 82.6 87.9 #N/A #N/A Count (39) (39) (39) (37) (36) (37) (38) (2) (0) (0) i i UPS B757 62: Average 93.9 94.0 91.2 85.1 84.6 86.1 82.71 86.0 #N/A #N/A Count (60) (57) (59) (60) (58) (59) (59) (2) (0) (0) iUS Airways A319' 1831 Average 94.5 93.4 93.5 86.2 84.7 86.5 84.7 90.1 80,3 81.4 Count (149) (139) (151) (150) (152) (144) (149) (27) (8) (10) -10- TABLE 7 MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS Commercial Class AA October - December 2000 Carrier ' AC Type # Deps NMS Site ' , 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8N 9N 1 ON Alaska Air B7374 60 Average 92.7 92.9 89.1 84.0 85.6 84.7 82.9 93.3 78.1 85.1 Count (58) (58) (58) (58) (58) (58) (57), (2) (2) (1) B7377 114 Average 90.8 90.7 86.8, 81.0 82.8 82.6 81.2 88.8 80.1 76.8 Count (98) (86) (99)~ (96) (99) (98) (86) (12) (5) (5) America West A320 312Average 91.9 92.~) 89.2 "84.9 83.§ 83.7 83.8: 84.7 79.8 #N/A Count (293) (281.) (295) (291) (291) (294) (216) (17) (2) (0) ,, B7373 337,Average 93.9' 93.9 90.4 84.8 84.7 85.7 83.3 90.0 81.6 80.3 Count (299) (273) (301) (300) (302) (300) .(297) (30) (17) (15) B757 1 Average 95.6 96.6 91.4 82.4 86.5 82.4 78.7 #N/A #N/A #N/Al Count (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (0)! (0) American B757 ' 687 Average 92.1 92.2 §0.0 84.5 84.2 85.3 83.5 88.7 81.7 78.1 Count (620) (546) (6.12) (610) (613) (613) (590) (61) (19) (22) MD90 152 Average 88.0 88.3 85.8 80.1 79.3 80.2 78.7 86.8 79.2 #N/A Count (143) (143) (142) (133) (125) (141) (77) (9) (1) (0) Continental ' B7377 166 Average 92.3 92.4! 89.2 84.2 83.7 84.2 82.0 88.9 81.4 78.5 Count (153) (136) (155) (151) (151)i (154) (143) (11) (4) (3) Delta MD90 329 Average 91.4 90.9 89.2 81.7 81.9 83.'9 81.9 90.3 79.9 79.4 Count (298) (271) (292) (276) (266) (285) (276) (32) (3) (16) Southwest B7373 172 ~Average ~3.8~ 93.7 90.0: 84.3 85.4 85.8~ 82.9 89.6 81.1 79.0 Count (156) (148) (159) (155) (159) (158) (158) (12) (10) (9) , B7377 5 Average 91.1 91.1 86.0 80.7 81.7 81.5 79.2i #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (4) (4)~ (0) (0) (0) United A320 388' Average 91.2 91.4 90.2 84.9 83.9 85'.2 84.~ 86.5 80.1 80.1 Count (354) (316) (356) (355) (357) (354) (344) (27) (6) (7) B757 2Average 93.9 94.0 89.2 80.2 81.7 81.3 80.1 #N/A #N/A #N/A Count (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (1 ) (0) (0) (0) i i ii i MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS Commercial Class E October - December 2000 Carrier AC Type # Deps NMS Site 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8N 9N 10N Alaska Air B7374 5 Average 95.1 94.4 90.8 84.8 86.0 86.2 84.3 94.1 78.1 #N/A Count (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (2) (1 ) (0) B7377 665 Average 89.8 90.1 86.5 80.8 82.5 82.3 81.4 88.9 81.4 78.7 Count (618) (582) (612) (602) (613) (615) (575) (44) (12) (16) i America West B7373 956 Average 92.6 92.7 89.3 84.5 84.2 84.7 82.6 89.5 81.5 80.2 :Count (870) (803), (870) (858) (864) (857) (839) (78) (43) (35) American MD90 671 iAverage 87.9 88.3i "85.9 80.6 '79.5 ' 80'.9 ' 80.4 87.5 80.4 79.5 Count (620) (564) (612) (551) (508) (583) (373) (52)~ (9) (13) Delta MD90 159iAverage 91.0 90.7 88.3 80'.'6 81.1 82.5 80.8 86.7 #N/A 76.9 Count (155) (153) (154) (124) (120) (152) (127) (5)= (0) (2) Southwest B7373 838Average 92.2 92.3 89.1 84.1 84.7 85.0 82.8 89.3 81.6 80.1 Count (777) (733) (780) (780) (778) (777) (764) (48) (23) (17) B7377 24 Average 89.2 89.0 84.9 79.6 81.1 81.7 78.5 85.7 #N/A #N/A Count (19) (18) (19) (18) (17) (18) (15) (5) (0) (0) i i United B757 920 Average 91.8 91.7 88.7 82.6 82.5 83.7 82,6 88.41 81.4 79.5 Count (826) (750) (827) (815) (809) (814) (807) (81) (30) (29) i -11- TABLE 8 MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS Commuter October - December 2000 'Carrier i AC Type # Deps NMS Site , 1S 2S 3S 4S 5S 6S 7S 8N 9N 10N SkyWest C'L60 89 Average 85.3 84.2 87.1 78.5 78.2 '80.2 76.9 86.~ 82.7 80,0 Count (74) (64) (73) (30) (18) (66) (4) (16) (2) (2) E120 1188 Average 80.5 83.2 81.8 81.0 83.5 79.2 81.9 80.9 80.3 78.8 Count (1071) (993) (1042) (82) (751) (974) (180) (70) (13) (11) i MEASURED AVERAGE SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS General Aviation October - December 2000 Carder AC Type # Deps NMS Site 1S 2S 3S 4s 5S 6S '7S 8N 9N 10N General Aviation Jet 2074 Average' 90.4 '89.8 90.7 85.0 84.9 85.5 85.9' 89.5 83.8 85.3 Count (1736) (1629). (1673) (995) (954) (1498) (835) (130) (22) (21) -12- TABLE 9 AIR CARRIER OPERATIONAL HISTORY Carrier AC Type Year 1996 1997 t§98 1999 2000 Alaska,~ir AS 57374 8,798 7,718 7,7~15 7,237 4,242 57377 1,090 5,658 MD80 220 4 i ~America West AW A319 112 746 , A320 780 6 509 1,060 1,575 57373 15,284 14,152 11,917 11,985 10,892 5757 858 1,332 205" 464 471 American' AA 57378 2 655 5757 8,542 8,970 8,329 8,145 8,621 , MD80 926' 610 1,119 2,285 4,931 MD90 ' 3,191 7,276 Continental CO 57373 (1) 2,786' 2,710 ,, 720 24 2 57375 (1) 1,995 2,061 2,030 ;B7377 868 2,491 3,189 57378 ,, 16 ,, , ~'5757 659 724 298 MD80 : 4 Delta DL 57373 6~'4 2 4 5757 1,452 2,202 2,117 1,585 2,086 MD90 2,944 3,058' 3,836 4,218 4,121 FedEx FM A30(~ 16 ' 18 12 20 82 A310 484 486 496 487 404 N°rthweSt NV{/ A319 9 481 A320 3,502 3,408 3,219 3,486 2,554 , 5757 2 Reno Air QQ MD80 4,072 4,200 4,246 2,622i MD90 '4,026 5,680 5,744 5,083~ i i i Southwest WN 57373 (1) 9,918 9,846 2,986 1,358 1,566 57375(1) 6,689 8,234i 7,977 57377 21 129 280 TWA TW5757 406 1,242 1,139! 1,174: 1,73b MD80 1,440 848 986 894~ 314 i United UA A319(21 749 1,035 797 A320(2/ 2,524 2',024 1,816,, 1,196 1,7,85: 57373 (1) 1,332 836 503 791 882 B7375 (1) 2! 55 B757 7,766 8,274 8,617 8,290 7,522: UPS 5X 5757 504 476 500 502 508 US Airways US A319 955 1,455 A320 11 2 57373 842 i,444 1,456 482 ' 5757 616 (1) Counts that separate B7373 and B7375 aircraft operations began in 1998. (2) Counts that separate A319 and A320 aircraft operations began in 1998. -13- TABLE 10 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL HISTORY Aircraft Year , 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 II A300 16 18 12 20 82, ,, A310 484 486 496 487 404~ A319/1) 749 2,111 3,479: A320(1) 6,806 5,438 5,544 5,753 5,916 97373(2) 30,776 28,990 17,582 14,640 13,3461 97374 8,798 7,718 ~,795 7,237 4,242 97375 (2) 8,686 10,350 10,007 97377 870 3,710 9,127 , 97378 18 655 9757 20,804 23,220 21,205 20,160 20,938; MD80 6,662 5,662 6,351 5,801 5,245, , MD90 6,970 8,738 9,580 12,492 11,397 , , (1) Counts that separate A319 and A320 aircraft operations began in 1998. (2) Counts that separate B7373 and B7375 aircraft operations began in 1998. FIGURE 5 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL HISTORY 5,000 0,000 5,000 0,000 5,000 0,000 5,000 0 A300 A310 A319 A320 97373 97374 97375 97377 97378 9757 MD80 MD90 By Year BI 1996 B 1997 131998 131999 92000 -14- TABLE 11 AIR CARRIER AVERAGE DAILY DEPARTURE HISTORY Carrier AC Type "' Year 1996' 1997 '1998 1999' 2000 I II I I iAlaskaAir AS 57374 12.0'~9 10.573 10.682 9.921 5.806 57377 1.490 7.719 ,, , MD80 0.301 0.005 America West AW A319 " ' 0.151 1.019 !A320 1.066 0.(~08 0.688 1.4~5, 2.150 B7373 20.880 19.386 16.351 16.422 14.874 5757 1.172 1.825 0.279 0.630 0.642 I ~ American AA 57378 0.003 0.893 5757 11.669 12.288 11.397 11.159 11.779 ~ , MD80 1.265 0.836 1.551 3.148 6.743 MD90 4.359 9.9321 Continental CO 57373 (1) 3.806 3.712 0.984 0.033 0.005 B7375/1) 2.742 2.844 2.776 57377 1.184 3.392 4.352 57378 0.022 5757 0.900 0.992 0.4081 MD80 0.005: Delta DL 57373 0.~39 0.003 0.005 5757 1.984 3.016 2.899! 2.175 2.850 MD90 4.022 4.189 5.249 5.775 5.628 FedEx FM iA300 0.022 0.025 0.016 0.027 O.112 A310 0.661 0.666 0.679 0.668 0.552 i i Northwest NW A319 0.014 0.656 A320 4.784 4.668 4.408 4.775 3.'492 5757 0.003 i Reno Air QQ MD80 5.563 5.753 5.830 3.597 MDg0 5.500 ~".781 7.860 6.964 ,Southwest ' WN 57373 (1) 13.549 13.488 4.088 1.860 2.142 57375 (1) 9.167 .11.296 10.893 57377 0.003 0.178 0.383 i TWA TW 5757 0.555 1.701 1.564 1.627 2.366 , MD80 1.967 1.162 1.345 1.208 O,429 ii i i i i United UA A319(2) 1.030 1.411 1.082 A320(2) 3.448 2.773 2.~188 1.647 2.432 57373.(1) 1.820 1.145 0.688, 1.082 1.202 57375 (1) 0.003 0.016 5757 10.609 11.334 11.803 11.441 10.298 UPS 5X 5757 0.689 0.652 0.685 0.61~8 0.694 US Airways US A319 1.310 1.989 A320 0.014 0.003, 57373 1.150 1.978 1.995 0.660 5757 0.842 (1) Counts that separate B7373 and B7375 aircraft operations began in 1998. (2) Counts that separate A319 and A320 aircraft operations began in 1998. -15- Noise Abatement Committee Meeting Date: December 20, 2000 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Eddie Martin Building AGENDA ITEMS AND ITEMS DISCUSSED: 1. Airport Statistics Bonnie Streeter provided an update on the airport statistics for the current year through November 2000. She noted that passenger levels are up about 5% this year over I999 and that there have also been increases in the amount of air cargo tonnage, air taxi and military operations. Conversely, air carrier operations have decreased somewhat, and general aviation operations have significantly decreased by approximately 25%. 2. Status of the Santa Ana Heights Acoustical Insulation Program Carl Braatz gave an update on the Acoustical Insulation Program (AIP). Work underway includes AIP Phase-8, which consists of 21 single-family dwelling units. Carl anticipates an award of the construction contract for this phase in May of 2001. AIP Phase-7 is in the construction stage and involves the insulation of a 182-unit apartment complex. This construction contract was awarded at the end of June 2000, with construction beginning in November 2000. In consideration of the tenants and their holiday plans, construction on this project has been suspended from the third week of December 2000 through the first week of January 2001. Carl also noted that the AIP has replaced four heaters that were recently discovered to be faulty. There are an additional five heaters that are slated for replacement in the near future. 3. Caoacitv Allocations for the 2001/2002 Plan Year John Leyerle explained that at John Wayne Airport there is limited operational capacity available for allocation to the air carriers consistent with current restrictions and regulations. On an annual basis, the Airport Director receives requests from the air carriers for capacity for the following Plan Year. The requests are analyzed and result in recommendations for a capacity allocation plan. The JWA Airport Commission and the Board of Supervisors must approve these recommendations. -16- Noise Abatement Committee Meeting (continued) There are a variety of operational capacities to be allocated to the carriers each year. For the commercial carriers there is departure capacity, aircraft seat capacity and remain-over- night parking capacity. The commuter carriers are allocated passenger capacity and remain-over night parking capacity. John explained that it is the intention of the Board of Supervisors to allocate the maximum available capacity possible in order to best serve the traveling public, while adhering to the administrative restrictions of JWA regulations. 4. Tentative date for next meetina The date for the next quarterly Noise Abatement Committee meeting will be announced by letter approximately two weeks before the meeting. 5. Brief Demonstration of TAMIS A brief demonstration of the TAMIS Live Noise Monitoring display was provided in the Access and Noise Off~ce. -17- NAC ROSTER December 20, 2000 NAME ORGANIZATION Pete Drummond Newport Beach resident/ Airport Working Group Betsy Eskridge · Carl Braatz CalTrans Aeronautics Program John Wayne Airport Dave Post TWA Justina Williams City of Tustin John Leyerle John Wayne Airport Rena Balleweg John Wayne Airport Bonnie Streeter John Wayne Airport John Escobedo John Wayne Airport Doffs Mays John Wayne Airport -18- June 21, 2001 Project File 241-01 Ms. Justina Willkom City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Subject: Review of John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Reports for the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2000 Dear Ms. Willkom, As requested, we have reviewed the referenced quarterly reports for the noise abatement program at John Wayne Airport. The following provides our findings with regard to airport operations and their impact on the City of Tustin: 1. Referring to Figures 1 and 2, the average annual CNEL at NMS 1 ON was 57.3 dB for the year 2000 based upon data for all four quarters. This is 0.5 dB higher than the average annual CNEL of 56.8 dB for 1999. (NOTE: The noise contours for John Wayne Airport are based on average annual CNEL values measured at each remote monitoring station.) e The average annual CNEL of 57.3 dB in 2000 reflects the continuation of a modest upward trend in the aircraft noise exposure measured at NMS 1 ON. This trend is illustrated in the following table: Year'. '..... .'..'... ..... ..:.. 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 56.1 dB 56.4 dB 56.8 dB 55.9 dB 57.0 dB 56.8 dB 57.3 dB 3. Referring to Figure 2, the number of noise complaints received from the Tustin area does not appear to correlate with the average quarterly aircraft CNEL measured at NMS 1 ON, nor with the number of quarterly jet operations at the airport. As indicated in the figure, the CNEL peaked during the second quarter of 2000, while the number of complaints from residents of the Tustin area fell steadily throughout the year. 4. As indicated in Item 1, above, the annual average CNEL measured at NMS 1 ON was 57.3 dB through the fourth quarter of 2000. This is slightly Laguna Hills, CA 92653 less than the 58 dB that was estimated for the station in the referenced Tel: 949/829-6722 aircraft noise impact study for the Phase 2 Access Plan. Fax: 949/829-6670 Wieland Associates, Inc. Acoustical Consultants 23276 South Pointe Drive Suite 114 www. wielandassoc.com i ii,, '-~. oo. ~z~ = ='~, ~.1 I I I .~N___ ~ .... ~ ___, ~ _ _ ~ ~_~_ , , oo % , ']- --T .... ~ .... ~ - , I I I .ql~_--~ .... ~ ..... .].-I---L .... L __ ~ ' 0~ ~ ~ , '* ' ' ' ' ~ .~._l_._ ~ .... ~ -- ~ · ~,N, , , , ~ i~' , , , , ~,~ = ~ , , , °o i~ ,, , , , ~~ , I I , , , ~o ~! -* -~---* .... *--- ~,~ z~ z ,~ , , , ~om .~.__~_~ .... ~ .... , ~ , I ~ I I I I ~ I I I I I I Average Quarterly Aircraft CNEL, NMS 10NJ 58.5 . ' 58.0 57.5 ~ .._.. ... 57.0 ' · · · · · · .... .-, ; ', l':' : i '. · · :.... 56.5 ...... -~i ....... :-:" .:.: ~ :.: :h.' .... ~.:.: -!-:~---, · ~ i-i' 1.~, ~..'. i.:. 56.0 --'-'!-: ..... ~::-:' .... :-:- :.:.: ..:.. ..... .:.:. 55 5 ...... '-: ..... -: -'-i .... :: '' ~'-: ...... -'-' ............ ''' . :.:, : : .'.' !:.., ,:.:. ,:.:. '.'.' i ; i" , 'i' , '~": , :';" "'" "i" , "~" 55.0 ' ' ' ' .... 1Qtr99 2Qtr99 3Qtr99 4Qtr99 1Qtr00 2Qtr00 3Qtr00 4Qtr00 ITotal Quarterly Jet Operations, NMS 10NJ 23,000 22,000 ;.-.. ~ '~ii i'-" · · r. · '~-it L' "-' ;% ._; 21,000 -' .......................... . . . :~':.~ . , ':-: .-. ,.. ,.-. :.:.: :.: ...~ :.:, 20,000 .......... '-": ..... -:'" - - -- :-'-: ..... ' '-:: .... :-: .'-: ............ : :::: ::::: ::: .:.: .... :::: [.'.' , .., :.:. .:.: .:::.: :.:. 18,000 i , , [:i: , i: , i , ,.,-. , 1Qtr99 2Qtr99 3Qtr99 4Qtr99 1Qtr00 2Qtr00 3Qtr00 4Qtr00 I Avorag¢Quarterly Noise Complaints 80 ' ~"~ {30 E .................................. "''~ · ~ :111~ -& 40 ............... :':': '.'. ,..., : : E!.:~ :::: ::::: :.:.: :::' o 0 20 '- '!~!-t ' '' ''' :: ...,,.... :: ,,:,, 0 "i': , 'i" , i'i" , , :';" , "}". · ~ , 1Qtr99 2Qtr99 3Qtr99 4Qtr99 1Qtr00 2Qtr00 3Qtr00 4Qtr00 WIELAND Average Quarterly CNEL, Quarterly Jet 2 ASSOCIATES, INC. Operations, and Quarterly Noise Complaints , , · .', : : ... : : :.: -1. .:. '- . 1~ -:.:2 '.' '-' . . .2. '.' '.' ' - -1 ': 13 -: 7: ..... .: . : ~-1 L: ...... ~ .-i .... ~-'- ' i '. , 'i' , 'i' , ~ , ',- , ',' , .~. , .i. CITY OF TUSTIN Project File 241-01 Aircraft Noise Contours Figure 3 provides the estimated location of the John Wayne Airport noise contours for 2000. These are based on the year 2000 contours developed by the John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Office, and data through the fourth quarter of 2000. Referring to Figure 3, it is estimated that in 2000 the aircraft-generated CNEL ranged from about 59 dB to less than 55 dB. This is well below the City, County, and State criteria of 65 dB for residential areas. Use of Quieter Aircraft at John Wayne Airport The correlation between the increasing use of quieter aircraft at JWA and the change in CNEL within the City of Tustin has been assessed. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies aircraf~ into three categories based on noise levels. In order of decreasing noise levels, there are Stage I, Stage II, and Stage III aircraft. John Wayne Airport has only permitted Stage III aircraft since the early 1970's. The airport has its own classification scheme for passenger aircraft. In order of decreasing noise level, these are Class A, Class AA, and Class E aircraft. Table 1 provides the estimated number of each class of aircraft that used the airport between the first quarter of 1999 and the fourth quarter of 2000. Also provided is the measured average quarterly CNEL at NMS 1 ON. Table 2 provides the same information, but the values have been normalized to 17,000 aircraf~ operations (takeoffs and landings) per quarter. In this way, a correlation can be established between the quarterly CNEL and the mix of aircraft types. Referring to Table 2 and Figure 4, the percentage of quieter Class E aircraft using John Wayne Airport has gradually increased since the beginning of 1999. This increase in Class E aircraft was offset by a decrease in the use of the noisier Class A and Class AA aircraft. Based on data from the first quarter of 1999 through the fourth quarter of 2000, there does not appear to be any correlation between the aircraft mix and the average quarterly CNEL at NMS 1 ON. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with these acoustical consulting services. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us at 949/829-6722. Sincerely, Principal Consultant ii i ~ ~.,~ ~ ' '~ I I .%i ,~ · .~ ~, ~ . ,~, ..~ ~~~ ~ '/,~ "'"' · ~ i~. . .~, .% .~. ~: ~ ..,,, , __ '~N~ , ... . .~-e~. ~ ...... ..~ :~,.~ I I I ~111 II ~111 II II I ~E~ND ~stimated Location o~ ASSOC~TES, INC. Jo~ Wayne Ai~o~ Noise Contours, 2000 I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I . , (27 , ~ !~-'-''i'''~,' , I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ i I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I ~ I I ~ I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I , I I I I : i I I I I I I I I ~ I RefereHces CITY OF TUSTIN Project File 241-01 1. "Data Evaluation and Aircraft Noise Impact Study for the City of Tustin;" J. J. Van Houten & Associates, Inc.; January 8, 1990. 2. "Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report for the Period: July 1, 2000 through September 30, 2000;" John Wayne Airport. 3. "Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report for the Period: October 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000;" John Wayne Airport. ........... .... :...; :.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:. ...:.:.:.. :.... :.:.:...: .::':.::::::: ................... .................... ......... ........ :::.'.::'::;:: ;:...:-.:::::: ............ ................. ........ .......-.........-...... ............ ............. :~::':::~'i~..: :::~-~::.::::.:~::: ....... ......................... ............. .... :::::::::::::::::::::: ...... ,, ........... ............ .......... ........ ................... ........ ....... .:..========================= · : .. ;::::.:::.: :.:.::::;:: ...............o............... :~..~.. :::::::::~::: ......... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............... .-.......-.... ,............v ............... :::::::::::::::::::::::: .............. ::'.::i:i:::::: ::::::r~:::: ;.;.:::;::::::; :::l~!l::: :~::: :::':':::::'::' .............. '::'~::' :~::: ..... .:. .:..:.;.: .;. ...... ... ..... ============================= ............ :~::::::::::?.~::: .: :.:.: '.:.:.:.:.:.~,,i~: ............. :::'1~1~::: ';::':::::':::: .::. · .:::] :...:.:.:...:.: : :. :-::::::~::. ::::':::::::.:: · ::.~[i:: ::::::r~::: · ':.~::. ::: ..:.: .::: . ...:.:::::::: :::.:::.;:::::: · .................. ..... · ......................... ............................ . ............................ · - .::.:::::::::