Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutF-4h - John Wayne Airport - CorrespondenceSUPERVISOR, FIFTH DISTRICT THOMAS F. RILEY ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, P. O. BOX 687, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702-0687 PHONE: 834-3550 (AREA CODE 714) CITY ')E :12'v11P0?T'?':i1C� M AY 2 2 1989 May 1, 1989 :_(�1� v L The Honorable Donald A. Strauss, Mayor City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 OFFICE 0`= CINAitSocounGilrntl j_y Clerk L 0Vitner 6.4,1 Y Subject: John Waynerport: Your letter of April It, 1989 Dear Mayor Strauss: I. � .. 00 a 0-) ` v 0 J CX) o L 2 a i17 Q I have reviewed your letter of April 11, 1989, regarding John Wayne Airport. I appreciate the City's recognition of our efforts to promote noise abatement and safety at JWA and I certainly agree that "our mutual constituents deserve the best protection that can possibly be achieved..." However, based upon the information contained in your letter to me of April 11, 1989, I do not believe that goal would presently be served by undertaking the "comprehensive study" which you propose. I do believe that some of the concerns reflected in your letter of April 11 are being addressed by the Airport Manager and his staff, and that the most appropriate course of action under the present circumstances is for the City to continue to work with Mr. Rebella in these specific areas. There are other areas, however, where I am unable to perceive reasons for a comprehensive study sufficient to justify the substantial expense and the significant diversion of County staff resources at this time. As you know, this is a particularly critical point in the County's development of John Wayne Airport and the implementation of the County's Master Plan improvements for the airport which were approved by the Board of Supervisors in February 1985. Let me be specific: Your initial proposal is that a study be conducted with "selected airlines" to determine if modified "take -off procedures could be implemented to realistically decrease the noise impact of all aircraft". Your request is apparently based upon the results of a study conducted for the City by Mestre Greve and Associates, dated January 1989. I have reviewed a copy of the Mestre Greve report and do not agree with your contention that the results of the study are "somewhat inconclusive". Rather, Mestre Greve indicates that its analysis of alternative departure profiles for the three principal aircraft currently using John Wayne Airport "did not identify any real promising opportunities to reduce noise levels over Balboa Island and the Peninsula". Specifically with reference to the possibility that noise levels from MD-80 operations might be reduced by two decibels, Mestre Greve observed that "this is not a substantial decrease". In fact, it appears that it might not even be a perceptible change to the average person. While Mestre Greve does comment that Donald A. Strauss May 1, 1989 Page 2 there is a "possibility" of conducting actual flight tests to determine the effects of different departure procedures in addition to the computer modeling analysis performed by Mestre Greve, the consultant observed that any such testing program "would be quite expensive and doesn't appear to be justified by the small improvement estimated in this analysis". Mestre Greve does suggest that a "more detailed computer analysis could be undertaken, but would require assistance by the airlines for more precise aircraft performance data for use in the noise model." By copy of this letter, I am requesting that the Airport Manager cooperate with the City if the City decides to undertake additional computer modeling by Mestre Greve, and that the Airport Manager use his best efforts to coordinate with the airlines to obtain this additional aircraft performance data for the City. The other portions of the Mestre Greve study similarly indicate that there is no compelling evidence that significant expenditures of public funds or staff time in the pursuit of a comprehensive study of existing procedures would be productive at this point. For example, in its analysis of the flight track dispersion data available from the County, and similar data developed independently by Mestre Greve, Mestre Greve observes that "the fact that nearly 50% of the aircraft (departing JWA) are within plus or minus a 500 foot window near (monitoring) Site 8 is impressive". Mestre Greve also observes that its independent measurements of flight track dispersion "would seem to indicate that County estimates of dispersion based on acoustic data are reasonable". In your letter, you also indicate that the City believes that there are additional issues which should be addressed at this time, including, "but not necessarily limited to: (1) "a comprehensive review of the Noise Abatement Program, (2) the effectiveness of the planned noise abatement equipment improvements, and (3) procedures for handling noise complaints." With respect to these suggestions, I would first recommend that if the City is concerned about the existing procedures for handling noise complaints in the County's Noise Abatement Center, the City should direct its staff to work directly with the Airport Manager and his Noise Abatement Officer to discuss possible changes or refinement in those procedures. I believe that the same suggestion is appropriate with respect to the possible noise abatement equipment improvement. I understand that a recent City review of the County's noise monitoring system generally confirmed its reliability and usefulness. Naturally, we remain interested in the possibility of making hardware and software improvements to the system to provide additional capability, and I am certain that the Airport Manager and his staff look forward to receiving the input of the City of Newport Beach on those questions as the issue is processed through County staff, the Airport Commission and, ultimately, by the Board of Supervisors. I am concerned about your suggestion that "a comprehensive review of the Noise Abatement Program", be conducted at this point in time. As you know, Airport staff is deeply involved in the completion of the Master Plan improvements, including the new terminal facility, for its planned April 1990 opening. This is a monumental undertaking and places extraordinary demands on staff time and resources; I believe that additional demands for airport resources at this critical period could work to the detriment of the implementation of the Master Plan. In addition, there is some degree of uncertainty regarding the probable future operations pattern of JWA during Phase 2 of the 1985 Master Plan in terms of the number and identity of the air carriers who will operate at this facility, and the number and type of aircraft they will be using in their operations. Many of those uncertainties may be resolved during 1990 and 1991, and for that reason alone, it appears Donald A. Strauss May 1, 1989 Page 3 prudent to defer the possibility of a comprehensive review of the County's regulation of JWA until that future situation has stabilized. In addition, if the County were to undertake a comprehensive review of its noise related regulations as you request, I am deeply concerned that a number of other parties, aside from the City of Newport Beach, would insist on participating. This group would include not only other cities located in the general vicinity of JWA, local homeowners groups and other individual representatives, but also the airlines, and perhaps the Federal Aviation Administration. If such a comprehensive review were undertaken, I believe the airlines, and perhaps the FAA, would suggest that this review should revisit the question of the County's limit on the maximum number of Class A and Class AA flights, as well as a number of other County regulations imposed for the purpose of controlling aircraft noise at JWA - particularly in view of the recent Long Beach decision. For these reasons, I do not believe that the comprehensive review you have requested would be in the best interest of the County or the City of Newport Beach. EIR 508 provided a comprehensive analysis and framework for aircraft operations at JWA, and I believe that framework should be reopened only if there is a compelling justification to do so. We have come too far to capriciously abandon the operational parameters we all fought to hard to achieve. I am also concerned that the suggested process could, under certain scenarios, be construed as a violation by the City of Newport Beach of the 1986 agreement by which the City and the County terminated all litigation then pending between them regarding John Wayne Airport. Evaluating major modifications to the County's regulatory program, together with all of the infrastructure and political questions which would surely accompany such a review, seems to me ill-advised and potentially counter -productive at this point in time. Finally, I agree with you that aircraft safety is a continuing and compelling issue of concern to all of us, and I can reaffirm the County's commitment to do everything reasonably possible with the scope of its regulatory authority to maximize the safety of aircraft operations on the airport and in the general vicinity of JWA. I also agree that the ARSA program will make a major contribution to improving airspace safety in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport. You indicate that the City believes "that more can be done" on this particular question, but your letter is not specific as to exactly what improvements in procedures or facilities you believe should be investigated. I remain willing to consider affording my personal support to any reasonable efforts to improve aircraft safety. Because I am confident that the Airport Manager is as committed as we are to maximizing the safe operations of John Wayne Airport, I would again suggest that you and your staff work closely with the Mr. Rebella and his staff on your safety related questions. I know he will welcome your suggestions and the opportunity to discuss them with you. As you know, I strongly support a continuing dynamic relationship between the County and the City of Newport Beach in working together to provide the citizens of Orange County a reasonable level of commercial air transportation services with the least possible negative environmental effects on surrounding communities. I believe that as events develop over the next two or three years at John Wayne Airport, and as we are able to see more concretely the effects and implications of the Phase 2 operations pattern at the airport, the review which you suggest might then be appropriate. However, at this particular time, I do not believe that the benefits of the comprehensive review you have suggested would be sufficient to justify diverting important County staff resources from other critical airport 57 Donald A. Strauss May 1, 1989 Page 4 tasks or that the benefits of such a review would outweigh the risks it presents to our mutual interests. Sincerely, je- Thomas F. Riley Chairman of the Board TFR:cw cc: Board of Supervisors Larry Parrish, CAO George Rebella, Airport Manager Dan Didier, County Counsel 7k