A. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The
City Council’s primary objective is to protect
The
City and community groups have achieved some success in controlling
airport impacts by understanding, and working within, the complex
legal, economic and political factors that are relevant to adverse
airport impacts such as the type and level of aircraft operations. The purpose of this Policy, which is
admittedly long and somewhat complex, is to provide elected and
appointed officials with information and guidelines that will help
ensure that decisions related to JWA serve the best interests of
Newport Beach residents and enable residents to better understand and
provide input regarding those decisions.
Recognizing
that the City has no legal ability to directly regulate JWA operations,
the City Council and community groups approved (in 1985), aggressively
protected (in 1990), and then extended the term (in 2002) of the JWA
Settlement Agreement. The JWA Settlement
Agreement is the single most important vehicle for controlling adverse
airport impacts. The City Council should
pursue future Settlement Agreement amendments but only if the terms and
conditions of the amendments don’t facilitate any airport expansion,
don’t modify the curfew, don’t adversely impact our resident’s quality
of life and are in the best long-term interests of
The
City will continue to aggressively oppose any proposal or plan that
could lead to development of a second air carrier runway or runway
extension and any plan or proposal that could lead to any modification
of the existing noise-based curfew. The
City will continue to work with, and support the efforts of, community
groups and other cities impacted by JWA when those efforts are
consistent or compatible with the airport strategies approved by the
City Council. The City will also actively
support any program or proposal that would help serve
This Policy has been developed
with input from the Citizens Aviation Committee (Aviation Committee)
that was established by the City Council in 1979. Aviation
Committee members have volunteered thousands of hours in developing and
implementing City airport policies and strategies.
The Aviation Committee is comprised of consists of residents of
each Councilmanic District, many of whom are pilots or otherwise
knowledgeable about airport or aviation issues, and the diversity of
membership ensures relevant input from all geographic segments of the
City. The City Council appreciates the
good work of the Aviation Committee and will continue to rely on the
Aviation Committee in developing and implementing airport policy.
B.
HISTORY
Many residential communities in
In 1985, the City, County, SPON
and AWG entered into a stipulation and agreement (1985 Settlement
Agreement) to resolve Federal Court litigation initiated by the County
seeking judicial approval of the Master Plan. The
1985 Settlement Agreement required the Board to modify resolutions
approving the Master Plan to reduce the size of the terminal and limit
the number of parking spaces. The 1985
Settlement Agreement also: (a) established three “classes” of
commercial aircraft (Class A, AA, and E) based on the noise generated
by the aircraft (operating with known gross takeoff weights) at the
departure noise monitoring stations; (b) limited the number of “average
daily departures” (ADD) of Class A and AA departures before and after
construction of a new terminal to 73 ADD; (c) limited the number of
passengers served each year at JWA (expressed in terms of “million
annual passengers” or “MAP”) to 8.4 MAP after construction of the new
terminal; and (d)required the County to maintain the curfew then effect
at JWA and enforce the General Aviation Noise Ordinance.
Between 1985 and 2002, the
County, City, SPON and AWG each collectively agreed, on seven separate
occasions, to amend the 1985 Settlement Agreement. These amendments
responded, among other things, to: (a) a new FAA Advisory Circular (AC
91-53A) that established specific criteria for close-in and distant
noise abatement departure procedures; (b) changes in the location
and/or type of equipment used to monitor commercial air carrier noise
levels on departure;
(c) air cargo carrier requests for access; and (d) changes in
passenger, facility and baggage security requirements brought about by
the events of September 11, 2001.
1n 1990, Congress adopted the
Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) which, in relevant part, requires
FAA “review and approval of proposed noise or access restrictions” on
Stage 3 aircraft. The City and County
successfully lobbied Congress to “grandfather” (exempt from the FAA
“review and approval” requirements of ANCA): (a) the 1985 Settlement
Agreement; (b) amendments to the 1985 Settlement Agreement that do not
adversely impact airport capacity or airport safety; and (c) the then
current County noise “curfew” ordinance
In August of 2000, the City
Council asked the Board to consider extending the term of the 1985
Settlement Agreement. During the next two
years, the City and County, with input from SPON and AWG, engaged in
discussions regarding the appropriate terms and conditions of the
extension. During this period, the City
engaged in an extensive public information program with the assistance
of other communities impacted by airport noise including
City Council, SPON and AWG
approval of the 2002 Amendments was contingent on receipt of a letter
from the FAA confirming that the 2002 Amendments were consistent with
ANCA, other relevant laws and regulations and grant assurances made by
the County. In December 2002, the FAA sent
a letter confirming compliance (FAA letter - Exhibit B).
In January 2003, the Honorable Terry Hatter (the Federal
District Court Judge who entered the stipulated judgment implementing
the 1985 Settlement Agreement stipulation) also approved the
stipulation of the parties implementing the 2002 Amendments.
The 2002 Amendments allowed the
County to offer additional air transportation service without any
significant increase in noise impacts on
C.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The
strategies, actions and decisions of the City Council and community
groups concerned about airport impacts must consider and respect the
complex statutory and decisional law related to aircraft operations and
airport regulations. The failure of the
City Council or community groups to accurately inform
1.
Noise Control.
The U.S. Supreme Court has
decided that the owner of an airport – the proprietor – is the only
non-federal entity that can adopt regulations restricting the amount of
noise that is generated by aircraft operations. A
non-proprietor such as the City of
2.
Aircraft Operations & Airport Facilities.
The FAA has exclusive
jurisdiction over aircraft after takeoff and extensive authority over
airport facilities. The FAA approves
standard instrument and noise abatement departure procedures and has
done so with respect to aircraft operations at JWA.
The FAA also approves “airport layout plans” for each airport
and has the authority to enforce regulations that promote and/or
pertain to airfield and airport safety. While
the proprietor retains the authority to decide the number and nature of
certain facilities such as passenger loading bridges and aircraft
tie-downs, the FAA has adopted, and has the discretion to enforce,
numerous regulations governing airport facilities.
Federal law preempts any local law purporting to regulate
aircraft operations or airfield safety.
3.
Interstate Commerce Clause.
Commercial air carrier operations
are considered interstate commerce and the Interstate Commerce Clause
can be invoked to invalidate local laws or regulations that purport to
control certain aspects of those operations. The courts will invalidate
laws or agreements that are found to be “unreasonable restraints” on
Interstate Commerce.
D.
POLICY - SUMMARY
The following components comprise the City's airport policy:
1.
Primary Objective
2.
Considerations
3.
JWA Settlement Agreement
4.
JWA Facilities & Operations
5.
Alternative Transportation Service
6.
Public Agency Support and Participation
7.
Community Involvement
8.
Monitoring/Recommendations
E.
POLICY
1.
Primary Objective
The City Council’s primary
objective is to protect
2.
Considerations
The City’s airport policy has,
historically, been based on a thorough understanding and consideration
of a wide range of factors that are relevant to airport operations and
impacts. Factors relevant to airport
operations and impacts include:
a.
State and Federal law;
b.
The attitudes, philosophy and regulations of the FAA;
c.
The state of the economy – national and regional;
d.
The economic condition of the air carrier industry;
e.
The regional demand for air transportation;
f.
Regional and sub-regional planning and transportation programs
and policies;
g. The
decisions, philosophy and opinions of the Board of Supervisors and, to
a lesser extent, other local, State and Federal representatives and
officials; and
h.
The opinions and concerns of
The number of relevant factors
and the complexity of the issues related to adverse airport impacts
mean that no single approach or simple strategy will be successful in
achieving the City’s primary objective. The
City will be able to achieve its primary objective only if its
strategies and action plans reflect a thorough understanding and
consideration of these factors – especially the legal framework
applicable to airport and aircraft operations – and if its residents
understand the inherent limitations on the City’s legal authority to
regulate aircraft operations or airport service levels.
3.
JWA Settlement Agreement
The JWA Settlement Agreement is
the primary vehicle by which the City exercises control over airport
impacts. The operational and service level
restrictions in the JWA Settlement Agreement remain in effect at least
until January 1, 2016 and provisions related to the curfew remain in
effect until at least January 1, 2021. The
FAA letter confirming the validity of the 2002 Amendments is a
precedent for future amendments that, like the 2002 Amendments,
increase air transportation service without impacting airport capacity,
airport safety or the quality of life of
a. The City Council
shall not consider or approve any agreement (including any amendment of
the 2002 Amendments) that would or could result in any modification to
the County’s airport curfew ordinances.
b.
The City Council shall not consider or approve any agreement
(including any amendment of the 2002 Amendments) that would or could
lead to the construction of a second air carrier runway.
c.
The City Council should consider modifications to the Settlement
Agreement only upon a determination, based on appropriate environmental
documentation, that the modifications will not materially alter the
quality of life, and are in the best long term interests, of
d.
As a condition to any amendment of the 2002 Amendments or
successor agreements, the City Council should obtain a favorable FAA
determination that the proposed amendment or agreement is exempt from
FAA review and approval on the basis that there is no adverse impact on
airport capacity or airport safety and complies with other relevant
federal laws and regulations.
4.
JWA Facilities & Operations
JWA has a single air carrier
runway with air carrier, air cargo and general aviation facilities
sharing approximately 500 acres. The City
Council shall take any action necessary to ensure that no additional
air carrier runway is constructed. The
City Council shall also take any action necessary to prevent any
modification of the existing noise curfew that, generally speaking,
prohibits certain departures from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (8:00 a.m.
Sunday morning). The City should also
support any plan or proposal that maintains, and oppose any plan or
project that proposes any significant change to, the existing level of
general aviation operations, the current level of general aviation
support facilities or the General Aviation Noise Ordinance. Finally, the City shall take all steps
necessary to preserve or enhance the existing remote monitoring system
(RMS) and public disclosure of RMS readings and information.
The City, through the Aviation
Committee, will also continuously evaluate means and methods by which
JWA impacts can be minimized including the analysis of changes in
airport procedures and aviation related technological advancements to
determine if feasible alternatives exist. In
the event the City identifies feasible alternatives that could reduce
adverse airport impacts the City shall take all reasonable actions
necessary to implement the alternative(s).
5.
Alternative Transportation Service
The City Council recognizes that
there is presently no feasible site for a second air carrier airport in
a.
Promoting circulation and transportation improvements from
b.
Supporting development of new or expanded air carrier facilities
in locations that are, or could be with appropriate transportation
links, convenient to
c.
Supporting the development of new or expanded air cargo service
and facilities that could increase the airfield or airspace capacity of
existing passenger serving airports.
d.
Supporting regional and sub-regional plans and programs that are
consistent with then current JWA operational and passenger service
levels and provide potentially feasible means or mechanisms to serve
some
6.
Public Agency Support and Participation
The City Council should
continuously pursue support for each component of this Policy from
other public agencies, especially those concerned about JWA impacts. A key component of any such initiative is the
The City will participate, to the
maximum extent possible, in local and regional planning processes that
have a bearing on decisions regarding airport capacity, airport service
and other relevant issues. Of particular
importance is participation in the Southern California Association of
Governments’ (SCAG) development of the Regional Transportation Plan. The City Council and staff will also
regularly meet and communicate with County, State and Federal elected
or appointed officials regarding the actions that the officials can
take (or oppose) that will help the City achieve its primary objective.
7.
Community Involvement
The City Council recognizes that
any plan or strategy to control JWA impacts requires support and
assistance from community-based groups concerned about airport impacts. These groups, such as the AWG, have
volunteered thousands of hours pursuing strategies and plans designed
to minimize airport impacts and were instrumental in past successes. The City Council welcomes, and will support,
the efforts of any group or individual that is striving to achieve the
City’s primary objective, understands the legal, political and economic
factors that are relevant to the control of airport impacts and seeks
to achieve the City’s primary objective in a manner that reflects full
consideration and understanding of those factors.
The City will communicate
regularly with its residents relative to the key provisions of this
Policy as well as local and regional activities that are relevant to
this Policy. As part of this
communication, Council members and staff will regularly meet with the
leaders and/or members of citizen-based organizations concerned about
airport impacts.
8.
Monitoring/Recommendations
The City Council is ultimately
responsible to achieve the primary objective of this policy – to
minimize the impact of JWA operations on the quality of life of
a.
Monitoring Settlement Agreement Compliance.
The City
Manager shall carefully and thoroughly monitor those aspects of airport
operation relevant to the Settlement Agreement, including County
enforcement of the General Aviation Noise Ordinance and provide the
Aviation Committee and the City Council with periodic reports.
b.
Monitoring
c.
Monitoring Regional Planning Agencies. Agencies such as
SCAG have the authority to, and do, adopt plans and programs that
materially impact airport planning, airport usage, airport development
and access to airports. The City Manager
should ensure that a City representative routinely attends all SCAG
meetings that pertain to aviation and report all relevant activities to
the City Council and the Aviation Committee.
d.
Monitoring State & Federal Legislative Sessions. State
and Federal legislation – such as ANCA – have the potential to impact
JWA and
e.
Recommendations. The City Manager should
continuously advise the City Council on actions that should be taken to
implement this Policy in a manner consistent with the Fundamental
Principles. The City Manager shall prepare
and submit to the City Council for consideration at a noticed public
meeting reports that explain the rationale for any recommendation.
[Exhibit
A] 2002 Amendments - Available in PDF Format Only
[Exhibit
B] FAA Letter - Available in PDF Format Only
Amended – November 27, 1978
Amended – October 14, 1980
Amended – July 27, 1981
Amended – September 27, 1982
Amended –March 14, 1983
Amended – May 23, 1985
Amended – December 9, 1985
Amended – October 22, 1990
Formerly B-1 and B-2
Adopted – December 13, 1993
Amended – February 27, 1995
Amended – March 22, 1999
Amended – July 25, 2006