Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Non-Agenda - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed May 14, 2019 Non -Agenda Item May 14, 2019, City Council Non -agenda Item Comments The following comments for the Newport Beach City Council are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o)-yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item XVI. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS More than one in four' of the jets flying out of John Wayne Airport is an unscheduled, unregulated "general aviation" jet. Unlike scheduled planes, there is no limit on the number of these, or the hours at which they can operate. Much of the GA activity occurs on portions of the airfield leased by the County to, and apparently controlled by, private operators. With all but one of the existing long-term leases having recently expired, airport staff is currently promoting proposals to reconfigure the GA acreage on the airfield in ways that may allow, and even encourage, a greater number of the unregulated jets — their so-called General Aviation Improvement Program. The matter is currently before the Orange County Board of Supervisors. On May 72, they heard public testimony including many speakers, but an inconsistent message, from Newport Beach. On May 213, they are likely to make a decision that will affect the quality of life in Newport Beach for decades. In view of this background, it was very disappointing to see the City announce it was cancelling its Aviation Committee meeting previously scheduled for May 13. That would have seemed the perfect opportunity for the impacted public and staff to exchange ideas in preparation for the May 21 meeting, and to develop a more unified message. Instead, we are assured the City, including the Council and its consultants, are privately negotiating with the County. That does not seem like a good way for public government to work, especially when it has a public mechanism in place. I urge the Council to direct staff to schedule a meeting of the Aviation Committee before the Supervisors make their decision on May 21, so the community can assist "the City" in formulating, understanding and possibly backing its position. Among my concerns: 1. The GAIP seems to be fundamentally about new leaseholds, but it is not at all clear from EIR 627 how much acreage the County proposes to lease, and to how many leaseholders, and how much acreage it will retain control over. a. Table 1 on page 6 of Appendix D suggests the County currently controls 368 GA parking spaces, with the remainder controlled by six private operators. b. Although AECOM, in Appendix B to the EIR, has prepared a number of "concepts" (including detailed possible plans), which are what is studied in the EIR, the division between County and private control is less clearly defined. ' For the exact proportion, see Table 1 of the airport's quarterly Noise Abatement Reports. 2 Agenda Item 20. See "minutes" and video (in two parts, morning and afternoon). 3 Scheduled as Item S74A on the supplemental agenda. May 14, 2019, City Council Non -agenda Item Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Even more worrisome, if the Board were to endorse an alternative, it is not clear the extent to which a future leaseholder would be constrained to develop the leasehold in conformance with AECOM's concepts or projections. For example, on May 7, Airport Director Rondinella told the Board, that although the EIR studied the stated number of based aircraft, there was no assurance of any particular mix of light versus jet planes. The private leaseholders would presumably adjust that to maximize profits (which many fear would tilt toward jets). And the projected number of operations is not guaranteed at all. Even in Alternative 3, favored by the City, or "no project," where AECOM foresees no need for any new construction, it is unclear the Board's current approval would constrain future leaseholders from rebuilding or reconfiguring the facilities now, or at some time in the next 30 years, as long as they stay within the limits studied in the EIR, or prepare a new study (in this connection, it is disturbing Exhibit 2-2 of the DPEIR, showing the existing facilities, depicts no existing building at the ACI Jet location, even though Table 1-1 indicates a 12,840 sf terminal there). 2. In this connection, the public needs to understand if Supervisor Do's proposal, with a fixed limit of 65 GA jets based at JWA would be more restrictive, and less consequential, than Alternative 3, with a projected, but not guaranteed, capacity for 58 GA jets. 3. Likewise, the public needs to better understand the So Cal Pilots' suggestions for alternatives not yet studied by the County, in which various amounts of acreage would be permanently reserved for light versus jet (or mixed?) use, with even less clear restrictions on what could be done within those areas. 4. Beyond the above, is there any guarantee the proposed GA leaseholders will not be able to allow scheduled commercial flights to operate out of their leaseholds in the future, as is currently being allowed with JetSuiteX at ACI Jet? Is the City asking for any limitation on such operations? 5. AECOM's concepts include an expanded (and, one assumes, "best in class") flight school. Is there any assurance this will not be used for training jet pilots, providing an opportunity for real-world experience with unlimited touch and go operations throughout the day? 6. Are the FAA safety improvements the City supports in Alternative 3 actually needed to accommodate aircraft currently flying out of JWA, or are they intended to qualify JWA for use by a class of aircraft not currently allowed? 7. Board Chair Bartlett, Supervisor Wagner and probably Supervisor Chaffee accept staff's contention increasing the number of private jets based at JWA will reduce the number of operations, since planes will not have to come from elsewhere to pick up OC passengers. Hence, they think it is clear that Alternative 1 will be better than Alternative 3 in terms of added jet flights over Newport Beach, and that is their stated reason for rejecting the City's favored Alternative 3 out of hand. May 14, 2019, City Council Non -agenda Item Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 a. As Board Vice Chair Steel and City consultant Tom Edwards pointed out on May 7, the EIR (which presumably factors in the savings associated with based jets) reaches the opposite conclusion. b. Won't there be a problem with the Board certifying an EIR that a majority feels reaches erroneous conclusions? c. That said, isn't there a hole in the Supervisor's reasoning (which may explain AECOM's different conclusion), in that if JWA becomes the "best in class" facility for storing GA jets, some of the jets stored at JWA will be going to pick up passengers at other locations, and return, generating new and unnecessary trips that don't serve OC passengers? 8. The EIR has a number of other problems that may not have been properly raised by the City or others. These include: a. Inconsistencies and lack of clarity in numbers used to describe the project and alternatives. i. For example, Table 2-2 on page 2-14 gives the number of County - controlled tie -down spaces and shade structure 306 and 60, when those numbers are given most everywhere else (for example, Table 1-1 on page 1-7, or Table 1 on page 6 of Appendix D) as 302 and 66. b. I would think the City would want to question the County's determination of the proposal's consistency with the City's General Plan in Table 4.6-8. c. It is also surprising no one seems to have challenged the County's dismissal in its Initial Study of the possibility of any biological impacts. i. This seems inconsistent with the County's EIR 617, prepared in connection with the 2014 Settlement Agreement extension, which found that unconstrained growth of the airport could have significant negative impacts on the ecology of the Upper Bay. ii. With regard to the impact of noise on the wildlife, the dismissal of impacts due to the GAIP seems something of a self-fulfilling prophecy in view of the County's conclusion that the GAIP will have minimal noise impacts. iii. With regard to the possibility of a biological impact from increased deposition of jet fuel emissions, the basis for the dismissal is less obvious. 9. In addition to all the above, the City clearly needs to clarify its position opposing a GA customs facility in light of the comments by Chair Bartlett and Airport Director Rondinella on May 7. If it is true that JWA could not be used as a clearing site for GA jets continuing on to other destinations, the argument would seem to be that keeping it inconvenient for JWA based aircraft will discourage international flights — although that could perhaps be rephrased more tactfully as "making it more attractive will add to the number of international flights using JWA as a destination." May 14, 2019, City Council Non -agenda Item Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 10. Finally, we have been told, repeatedly, that our grandfathered Settlement Agreement limiting scheduled commercial jet operations is unique because the federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act otherwise prevents airport operators from doing anything that would reduce the capacity to serve aircraft below existing levels. a. Does anything in ANCA apply to on -ground capacity so that if the County allows increased GA jet capacity to be developed, it cannot later reduce it? b. Conversely, are there any ANCA roadblocks to the County's proposed reduction in the capacity of JWA to serve light GA in the Proposed Project and Alternatives 1 and 2? That is, can the County reduce its service capacity for light GA without FAA approval? If there is no bar to reducing light GA capacity, it would seem the County could reduce GA jet capacity, as well, rather than increasing it to meet hypothetical demand. In thinking about the longer range, it seems clear the City needs to rethink its articulation of its long-standing policies regarding general aviation at JWA in its General Plan (see policies cited in Table 4.6-8 of the County's EIR 627) and in City Council Policy A-17. Newport Beach has traditionally seen the dedication of acreage devoted to light GA aircraft as a buffer against the expansion of commercial jet operations at JWA. Presumably the intention has always been to limit total jet operations (both commercial and GA), but the policies ask to maintain GA levels without distinguishing between "light" and jet GA. Hence, the County is able to find its proposals "consistent" with the City policies even when they shift GA activity from "light" to jet — which does not appear to have ever been the intent.