HomeMy WebLinkAboutAC Minutes 12-14-2015
MINUTES of the
COUNCIL/CITIZENS AVIATION COMMITTEE
MEETING DATE & LOCATION: Monday, December 14, 2015, at the Newport Beach Civic Center (100 Civic
Center Drive, NB), Community Room.
ATTENDANCE:
Committee membership:
Tony Petros Council Representative present
Kevin Muldoon Council Representative not present
Duffy Duffield Council Representative not present
Kay Mortenson District #1 present
Vacant District #1 (alt)
Eleanor Todd District #2 present
Gerald Scarboro District #2 (alt) present
Tom Anderson District #3 not present
Bonnie O’Neil District #3 (alt) present
Tom Meng District #4 present
Vacant District #4 (alt)
Vicki Frank District #5 present
Walt Richardson District #5 (alt) not present
Shirley Conger District #6 not present
Bud Rasner District #6 (alt) present
Jim Dunlap District #7 present
Karen Rhyne District #7 (alt) present
Dave Kiff City Manager present
Aaron Harp City Attorney present
Melinda Seely SPON/Air Fair Rep. Rep present
Tony Khoury AWG Representative Rep present
Roger Ham Newport Coast Rep present
Vacant General Aviation Rep N/A
JWA Representatives present: Eric Freed, Barry Rondinella
City representatives present: Carol Jacobs, Tom Edwards, Shirley Oborny
Others present:
Gary Armstrong Jim Jordan Michael St. Clair
Brian Benoit Marion Jordan Liz Vazquez-Avila
Mary Bradbury Brynn Kelly Sherree Vaughan
David Cook Jim Mosher Wendy Walker
Bill Dambrackas Margo O’Connor Ayrton Ward
Joan Dambrackas Bob Pastore Candace Ward
Thomas Damiani Lee Pearl Ronnie Weinstein
Greg Goeser Nick Ralston
Tony Goodrum Dan Rudd
City of Newport Beach
AGENDA ITEMS:
1. Call Meeting to Order. The meeting was called to order by Council Member Petros at 4 p.m.
2. Self-Introductions.
3. Approval of the Minutes.
The minutes from the September 28, 2015, Aviation Committee meeting were approved. Mr. Mosher
mentioned a few minor typos.
4. Updates/Current Business
(a) Update on MagVar (JW)
Mr. Freed said some adjustments were made in the takeoff procedures in September 2015;
however, it’s not exactly how it used to be. The FAA has made all the adjustments it feels are
necessary at this point. We put together a synopsis of what we’ve seen and compared tracks. We
recently shared this information with the airlines and asked them to provide any insight or
recommended adjustments. According to the FAA there are no violations occurring. We’re now
waiting to see what the airlines come back with.
Chairman Petros provided a recap of the situation for attendees who are not familiar with the flight
path situation. Mr. Kiff feels that it’s the MUSSEL and CHANNEL procedures that still have a
problem. We sent the airlines a scattergram that shows a westerly shift and asked them to help
solve this problem with us. If we don’t receive a good response from the airlines, we may need to
increase our efforts. The FAA is saying the path is appropriate; however, a lot of us think it’s not
appropriate yet.
Mr. Edwards also gave a technical overview of what’s happening with the takeoffs. He said the
airlines are involved in the discussion because each of their flight management systems is different.
Discussion ensued.
Mr. Weinstein said he recently hosted a neighborhood meeting. The consensus from the attendees
is they feel the County controls the airport, not the FAA. The citizens in Newport Beach and Costa
Mesa feel the planes are disturbing the peace, polluting the air, possibly causing serious health
issues, interfering with their home values, etc., and they don’t think it’s okay. He suggested Mr.
Rondinella needs to sit down with the FAA and tell them they need to fix the problem. It’s not
acceptable to tell the residents that nothing can be done.
Mr. Pastore talked about the variations between the takeoffs of the MUSSEL and the STREL.
Mr. Mosher suggested that Galaxy Park seems to be an accurate place to visually determine which
direction the planes are veering towards. He also reviewed the Airport Access plan which states
that if an airline chooses to take a different departure other than the one for which they qualify,
they must notify the airport ten days prior to the departure. That indicates to him that the airport
has more knowledge about what the airlines are doing than they have previously stated.
(b) Approaching key JWA issues, forming recommendations for City Policy (Kiff, Edwards)
1. NextGen departure procedures – for HAYLO, FINNZ – GE/Naverus “two turns” in the Upper
Bay.
Mr. Kiff said currently half the flight patterns coming out of JWA go down the STREL path. He
wants to know if a recommendation should be made that all flights go down the STREL path.
Referring to the handout (attached), he said the blue line is the STREL flight pattern. The
yellow line shows a two-turn departure that the City studied with GE Naverus, an airport
departure and arrival technology firm. GE Naverus feels it can be done; however, the FAA said
the U.S. might not be ready for that yet. The question for the committee is whether to
recommend to Council that the City prefers a combination of half the flights using the STREL
pattern and half using the two-turn departure pattern. He thinks it’s a good idea because it
gives a break to Balboa Island and the Peninsula without affecting new communities.
Chairman Petros said that in previous meetings the community has indicated its desire for
greater certainty about flights leaving the airfield. It wants to share the burden; fanning would
be better because it would array the sound. Mr. Petros likes the concept because it has a
professional basis by an organization that the City could advance.
The committee offered some comments:
It’s a good start because it affects the minimal number of homes
Residents on the peninsula would support the two-turn path
The two-turn path is desirable because it has less impact on residential zoning and more on
commercial zones
Safety is important to the FAA so the path needs to be safe
Mr. Kiff said if the recommendation is the two-turn path, the City would likely ask GE Naverus
to study it further. Mr. Edwards said the future Metroplex design will have some planes
veering off similar to the proposed two-turn path. If GE Naverus does more studies, it’s
important for them to know what the Metroplex will look like.
Mr. Pearl, President of the Balboa Island Improvement Association, said the presentation made
today is consistent with their recommendation on the Metroplex project. He believes they
would be supportive.
Mr. Khoury motioned to support a two-turn alternative for City Council consideration. Ms.
O’Neil seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
2. Studying a “higher, faster” departure procedure
a. Phase I – Evaluating current altitudes
b. Phase II – Determining if higher, faster carries with it significant noise reductions and is
feasible
Mr. Kiff explained that the 2007-2008 ARTS study looked at departures out of JWA. One
recommendation of that study was that some point in the future, the City should evaluate
whether or not the traditional noise abatement departure procedure was appropriate in light
of new technology. In rereading that section of the report, he thought it would be important to
talk to the committee about whether there is any merit in looking at another study. The study
could cost $50,000 to $80,000 and would take about six months.
Ms. Frank suggested there might be a study that already exists in light of the new,
recent takeoff procedures. Ms. Seely agreed.
Ms. Seely said her Board of Directors has talked about altitude for a long time. She
would be in favor of the study; although, she doesn’t think the airlines would like the
higher and faster because it would cost more money in fuel.
Mr. Khoury mentioned that the cost of fuel has gone down and he supports
recommending the study, if it doesn’t exist already.
Ms. O’Neil supports the study because the airlines should know they are causing health
problems with the noise and air pollution.
Mr. Scarboro suggested the study should include what the departures are like for the
other airports in the area, for safety reasons.
Mr. Radner and Mr. Ham are in favor of the study.
Mr. Edwards said in 2007 and 2010, this committee had the airport study the altitudes.
It might be good to look at those studies for comparison.
Mr. Pastor suggested finding out what each airline is doing, which can be done without
spending any money.
Mr. Pearl suggested checking with other cities to see if they are interested in sharing
the cost.
Discussion ensued about the airlines making the independent decision to take off at a lower
altitude.
Mr. Kiff reminded the group about the Settlement Agreement between the City, County, SPON
and AWG that says if the planes can take off without triggering the upper thresholds on the
noise monitors, they can take off any way they choose. With the study, we would be taking
something to them that would be voluntary. Mr. Harp agreed the airlines cannot be required
to be more restrictive than the Settlement Agreement.
Mr. Khoury motioned to advance a recommendation to the City Council to undertake a study, if
one does not already exist, that looks at the effects of higher, faster departures focusing on the
sound levels near the end of the runway and takes into consideration safety and air pollutants.
Mr. Rasner seconded the motion. The motion passed with one nay, Gerald Scarboro.
Mr. Edwards suggested somebody could look at EIR 546 from 1990 or 1991 as a starting point.
c. Phase III - Air quality, US EPA Rulemaking
Mr. Kiff explained that the US EPA this past summer is initiating a rulemaking on emissions
from air carriers. It includes investigation, potentially benchmarking and maybe leaning
towards setting additional regulations. He asked the committee whether they would like to
send correspondence to the EPA to lend support regarding emissions from air carriers.
Mr. Khoury motioned to recommend to the City Council to provide correspondence supporting
EPA’s efforts at rulemaking for air pollutants from air carriers. Mr. Meng seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Kiff wanted to note that it’s important for the City to work closely with its partners at the
airport. The City will not be successful without their participation.
(c) Any other updates from John Wayne Airport staff and or questions on Tom Edwards’ report
Mr. Rondinella said he’s happy to be part of this group. One reason he wanted to come to JWA is
because the City threads the needle between economic development, options for the traveling public
and job creation. He is committed to being a good neighbor.
Mr. Mosher pointed out that as JWA continues to experience growth, the unhealthier it will be for
Newport Beach.
5. Public Comments on Non-Agenda items
Mr. Mosher said that in 2002 in preparation for the General Plan Update and Coastal Land Use Update
the City contracted for a citywide hazards assessment for the natural and manmade hazards the City
faces. The EIR in connection with the extension of the airport mentioned in the hazards section the
fuel stored at the airport. With the 150 jets flying over Newport Beach each day, there is a possibility
of a plane crash in Newport Beach. The consultant recommended a study be done and Mr. Mosher
wonders if the public has seen that report.
6. Items for the next/other upcoming meeting agenda
N/A
7. Set the next meeting
The next meeting was tentatively set for March 14, 2016.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:39 p.m.
# # #