HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - John Wayne Airport MOU�a�W�Rr CITY �®�OF ORTBEACH
°9MO City Council Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 18
March 26, 2013
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office
Dave Kiff, City Manager
949 - 644 -3001, dkiff @newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Dave Kiff, City Manager
APPROVED:_
TITLE: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): John Wayne Airport
ABSTRACT:
City Council Policy A -17 (Attachment B) provides that the City Council's primary
objective is to protect residents from the impacts of commercial aircraft operations at
and from John Wayne Airport ( "JWA"). In 1985, the County of Orange ( "County "), the
City of Newport Beach ( "City "), the Airport Working Group ( "AWG "), and Stop Polluting
Our Newport ( "SPON ") (collectively, "Parties ") entered into a Settlement Agreement to
resolve litigation related to JWA. Over the years, the Settlement Agreement has been
amended by the Parties to adjust the terms and protect the interests of our community.
Because the Settlement Agreement is set to expire on December 31, 2015, the Parties
have been meeting in 2011 and 2012 to negotiate a possible extension of the
Settlement Agreement. Out of these discussions, the Parties have agreed on a
proposed project which, among other things, proposes to maintain the current
restrictions on JWA though December 31, 2020, with reasonable increases in the
number of passengers served and "Class A" departures from JWA going into effect
thereafter ( "Proposed Project ").
The attached Memorandum of Understanding ( "MOU ") is the first step towards
amending and extending the Settlement Agreement and provides for the preparation of
an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "), as required by the California Environmental
Quality Act ( "CEQA "), which will analyze the Proposed Project, as well as alternative
projects.
March 26, 2013
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the attached MOU regarding preparation
of an EIR for JWA.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
The City's adopted FY 2012 -13 Budget has resources designated to assist in the
funding of the environmental review associated with this MOU.
DISCUSSION:
The 1985 Settlement Agreement required the County, for a period of 20 years, to limit
the size and scope of terminal facilities, limit the number of daily departures by the
noisiest aircraft and cap the number of passengers served each year at JWA. In 2003,
the Parties extended the term of the Settlement Agreement and provided for a limitation
on the number of passengers served, the number of aircraft loading bridges and the
maximum number of noise - regulated departures. The 2003 Amendments were
accompanied by a letter from the Federal Aviation Administration ( "FAA ") confirming
that the amendments were consistent with the Airport Noise and Capacity Act ( "ANCA ").
The FAA letter confirming the validity of the 2003 Amendments was important because
it established a precedent for future extensions of the Settlement Agreement. The
Settlement Agreement is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2015.
The purpose of the MOU is to allow the Parties to define procedures and protocols they
agree to follow with respect to the preparation of an EIR necessary for the parties to
amend the Settlement Agreement. The EIR will study, among other things, the
Proposed Project which includes the following:
(1) Curfew. An extension of the County Board of Supervisor's commitment to
not change the existing curfew regulations and hours for JWA until at least December
31, 2035.
(2) Term. An extension and modification of certain loading bridge, passenger
and flight limits until at least December 31, 2030 (see below).
(3) Limitation of Passengers Served. A limit on the number of passengers
served as follows:
(a) Until December 31, 2020, no more than 10.8 Million Annual
Passengers ( "MAP ") (the same limits in place today);
(b) From January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2025, no more than
11.8 MAP: and
March 26, 2013
Page 3
(c) From January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2030, the MAP would
be determined as follows: (i) if JWA serves more than 11.21 MAP in
any calendar year from January 1, 2021 through December 31,
2025, then the MAP would be 12.5 MAP; or (ii) if JWA serves no
more than 11.21 MAP in any calendar year from January 1, 2021
through December 31, 2025, then the MAP would be 12.2 MAP.
(4) Limitation on the Number of "Class A" Average Daily Departures. A limit
on the number of "Class A" departures (generally, the loudest commercial flights) from
JWA (i.e. Average Daily Departures or "ADDs ") as follows:
(a) Until December 31, 2020, a maximum of 85 Commercial Air Carrier
Class A ADDs and 4 Commercial Cargo Air Carrier Class A ADDs
for a combined total maximum of 89 Class A ADDs (the same limits
in place today); and
(b) Beginning January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2030, a
maximum of 95 Commercial Air Carrier Class A ADDs and 4
Commercial Cargo Air Carrier Class A ADDs for a combined total
maximum of 99 Class A ADDs.
(5) Loading Bridges. The current cap of twenty (20) loading bridges would be
maintained through December 31, 2020, after which the limitation would end. Note:
there is no current limit on the numbers of gates at JWA. The 2003 Extension refers not
to gates but to loading bridges, with a cap of twenty (20).
As noted in the MOU, the burden of preparing the EIR will be on the County because it
will be the lead agency, whereas the City is a responsible agency for purposes of
CEQA. The MOU also requires the City to assume certain obligations including, but not
limited to: (1) equally sharing the costs of preparing the EIR with the County, with an
initial $100,000 deposit; (2) meeting with representatives of the County, AWG and
SPON on a weekly basis to help with the preparation of the EIR; and (3) if the
amendment to the Settlement Agreement is executed and a legal challenge filed, taking
on certain obligations to defend and indemnify Parties to the MOU. If the City Council
approves the MOU, this will be an important first step to the eventual amendment of the
Settlement Agreement, which amendment will still need to be approved by all Parties
and the Court after the EIR is certified.
Council Policy A -17. The Newport Beach City Council Airport Policy (Council Policy A-
17) is eleven pages plus a version of the stipulation filed with the US District Court that
embodies the 2002/2003 Extension to the 1985 Settlement Agreement. The policy
states that the City Council's "primary objective" is to protect Newport Beach residents
from the adverse impacts of commercial aircraft operations. It also notes that any
March 26, 2013
Page 4
strategies and plans developed by the City must "consider and respect the complex
legal, political, and economic factors relevant to airport operations and impacts." This
includes State and Federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), regional
demand for air transportation, and more.
The City believes that the Proposed Project is consistent with the Policy and the
"complex" factors associated with living adjacent to a major airport like JWA.
2006 Cooperative Agreement. The Proposed Project does not address nor impact the
2006 Cooperative Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the County of
Orange as to growth of JWA. The Cooperative Agreement has no termination date.
Among other things, the Agreement requires the County to seek the approval of the City
of Newport Beach if the County ever desires to acquire property to enable the
expansion of the current commercial air carrier runway or to add a second commercial
air carrier runway. These protections are of critical importance to the community, and
again will remain in place notwithstanding the changes to the 2003 Extension to the
1985 Settlement Agreement.
Concluding Notes. As the Proposed Project enters a greater public review phase
associated with the environmental analysis, the staff at the City wish to express our
sincere thanks to the various parties involved in the negotiations to this point. These
include working groups from the City Council, SPON, AWG, and representatives of JWA
and Supervisor John Moorlach's office (including the supervisor himself).
Earlier this week, representatives of the FAA advised that, after completing an informal
and cursory review of the proposal preferred by the City, AWG and SPON, they do not
see any impediments to moving forward with the environmental review process at this
time. After completion of the CEQA process and prior to the final approval of any
extension of the Settlement Agreement, however, the City expects the County to
correspond further with the FAA.
As noted, the County will be the lead agency for the EIR. CEQA requires that the lead
agency not "pre- judge" the analysis and that the lead agency's decision maker, the
Orange County Board of Supervisors in this case, not make any determination as to
which project will or should be adopted until the completion of the analysis and public
comment processes.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the City Council find the approval of the attached MOU is not subject
to CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3)
(the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines,
March 26, 2013
Page 5
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for
resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
NOTICING:
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
Submitted by:
Dave Kiff
City Manager
Attachments: A - Memorandum of Understanding and attachments
B - Council Policy A -17 (first 11 pages)
Memorandum Of Understanding
Regarding Preparation
Of An
Environmental Impact Report
The County of Orange ( "County"), as the owner and operator of John Wayne Airport ( "JWA "),
the City of Newport Beach, a charter city and municipal corporation ( "City "), Stop Polluting Our
Newport Corporation, a California tax exempt corporation (`SPON "), and the Airport Working
Group of Orange County, Inc., a California tax exempt corporation ( "AWG ") (each individually
referred to as a "party," collectively referred to herein as the "Parties ") have entered into this
Memorandum of Understanding ( "MOU ") effective 2013.
The purpose of this MOU is to allow the Parties to define procedures and protocols they agree to
follow with respect to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") pursuant to
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") (Pub. Resources Code,
§21000 et seq.) and State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15000 et seq.), which will
study the environmental implications of the Project, as defined in Section 1.7, infra. The Project,
in part, would constitute the second extension of the stipulation that settled litigation in County of
Orange v. Air California, el al. (U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal., Case No.CV -85 -1542 TJH (Mcx) (1985))
( "Action ") and imposed certain restrictions on the development and operation of JWA. The
MOU is made, in part, in light of the following recitals:
1.0 RECITALS
1.1 in November 1985, the Parties, by their respective counsel of record, entered into
a stipulation to settle the Action between the Parties concerning the proposed expansion of JWA
( "the 1985 Settlement Agreement "). On December 15, 1985, the United States District Court
entered a final judgment pursuant to the 1985 Settlement Agreement settling the Action
( "Judgment "). Under the terms of the 1985 Settlement Agreement, the Court retained
jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the 1985 Settlement Agreement.
1.2 On May 22, 2001, the County Board of Supervisors ( "Board ") approved a
Memorandum of Understanding between the County and City pursuant to which the County
would act as lead agency for the preparation of an EIR that would support the amendment and
extension of the 1985 Settlement Agreement.
1.3 After substantial negotiations between the Parties, the results of which were
evaluated in a certified EIR, the Parties executed a stipulation in February 2003 to modify the
Judgment ( "2003 Amended Stipulation "). The term of the 2003 Amended Stipulation is through
December 31, 2015. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Parties agree that none of the
operational or facility limits contained in the 2003 Amended Stipulation will expire at the end of
the 2003 Amended Stipulation's term, absent affirmative action by the Board to alter those limits
that is taken in accordance with CEQA and other applicable laws.
1.4 On or about February 25, 2003, the United States District Court accepted the 2003
Amended Stipulation and modified the Judgment to conform to the terms contained in the 2003
Amended Stipulation ( "Modified Judgment "). The Modified Judgment allows for, in part: (1) a
maximum of 85 Class A Average Daily Departures ( "ADDs ") for passenger commercial air
carrier service; (2) a maximum of four Class A ADDs for commercial cargo service; (3) 10.8
million annual passengers ( "MAP "); and (4) 20 passenger loading bridges. (See 2003 Amended
Stipulation, TT39 -41. Relatedly, the definitional provisions provided in the 2003 Amended
Stipulation at $TI 8 -35 govern the interpretation of this MOU, to the extent applicable.)
1.5 The Modified Judgment constituted "a subsequent amendment to an airport noise
or access agreement or restriction in effect on November 5, 1990" (49 U.S.C. § 47524), and was
found by the Federal Aviation Administration ( "FAA ") in 2003 to "not reduce or limit aircraft
operations or affect aircraft safety." Therefore, the 2003 Amended Stipulation and Modified
Judgment were "grandfathered" under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990.
1.6 The Parties are presently discussing the possibility of further extending and
amending the terms of the 1985 Settlement Agreement, as modified by the 2003 Amended
Stipulation. For purposes of this MOU, this proposal is referred to as the "Proposed Amended
Stipulation." To permit the Parties to fully consider the Proposed Amended Stipulation, evaluate
the environmental consequences, if any, and benefits of the Proposed Amended Stipulation, and
to facilitate the ability of other interested parties, including airport users and other affected
communities, to provide input, the Parties have agreed to work cooperatively in the preparation
of the appropriate CL--QA documentation. The Parties do not anticipate the need for "major
federal action" to implement the Proposed Amended Stipulation; therefore, the Parties do not
believe that any federal agency will be required to prepare an environmental analysis under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended ( "NEPA" ).
1.7 For purposes of CEQA, the proposed "Project" is the Proposed Amended
Stipulation. More specifically, the Project that shall be studied in the CEQA Documents (as that
term is defined in Section 5. 1, infra) contemplated by Section 5.0, infra, is as follows:
A. Term: The term of the Proposed Amended Stipulation between the Parties shall
be extended to December 31, 2030. All Patties acknowledge and agree that the inclusion
of a "term" shall in no way limit the ability of the Parties to enter into a subsequent
stipulation to amend/modify the Judgment and that the inclusion of a "term" does not
result in the automatic termination of the curfew at the end of the "term."
B. Curfew: The existing curfew regulations and hours of operation for JWA, as
contained in Sections 2 -1 -30.1 through 2 -1 -39 of the County's Codified Ordinances and
paragraph 4 at page 62 of Board Resolution 85 -255 (February 26, 1985), shall remain in
effect until at least December 31, 2035.
C. MAP Limitation: Until December 31, 2020, JWA shall serve no more than 10.8
MAP in any Plan Year (see 2003 Amended Stipulation, T$29 -30). Beginning January 1,
2021 through December 31, 2025, JWA shall serve no more than 11.8 MAP. If JWA
serves more than 11.21 MAP in any Plan Year from January 1, 2021 through December
31, 2025, beginning January I, 2026 through December 31, 2030, JWA shall serve no
2
more than 12.5 MAP. If JWA serves no more than 11.21 MAP in any Plan Year from
January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2025, beginning January 1, 2026 through
December 31, 2030, JWA shall serve no more than 12.2 MAP.
D. Regulated ADD Limitation: Until December 31, 2020, there shall be a
maximum of eighty-five (85) Commercial Air Carrier Class A ADDs and four (4)
Commercial Cargo Air Carrier Class A ADDS serving JWA for a combined total
maximum of eighty -nine (89) Class A ADDS. (A maximum of two (2) of the (4)
Commercial Cargo Class A ADDS may be allocated by the County to Commercial Air
Carriers for any Plan Year in which the demand for such flights by Commercial Cargo
Air Carriers is less than four (4) ADDS). Beginning January 1, 2021 through December
31, 2030, there shall be a maximum of ninety-five (95) Commercial Air Carrier Class A
ADDS and four (4) Commercial Cargo Air Carrier Class A ADDs serving JWA for a
combined total maximum of ninety -nine (99) Class A ADDS. (A maximum of two (2) of
the (4) Commercial Cargo Class A ADDS may be allocated by the County to Commercial
Air Carriers for any Plan Year in which the demand for such flights by Commercial
Cargo Air Carriers is less than four (4) ADDS).
E. Passenger Loading Bridges: Until December 31, 2020, there shall be a
maximum of twenty (20) passenger loading bridges at JWA. Beginning January 1, 2021
through December 31, 2030, there shall be no limit on the number of passenger loading
bridges at JWA.
The objectives of the Project are enumerated in "Exhibit A" to this MOU. Additionally,
at a minimum, the alternatives to the Project outlined in the attached "Exhibit B" to this MOU, as
well as the CEQA- mandated "no project" alternative, shall be considered and analyzed in the
EIR to an equal level of detail as the Project. In accordance with the discretion afforded to the
County under CEQA, the County is free to consider other alternatives and mitigation measures
that feasibly avoid, mitigate, or minimize the Project's significant environmental impacts, if any.
1.8 The CEQA Guidelines authorize the City and County to enter into a cooperative
agreement, such as this MOU, to define the roles and responsibilities of each agency in assessing
the environmental impacts of the Project.
1.9 The Parties cannot presently predict the precise period of time which will be
required to prepare, consider and circulate the CEQA Documents (as that term is defined in
Section 5.1, infra) contemplated by this MOU. However, the Parties acknowledge that it is an
objective of all Parties to proceed expeditiously to consideration of the Project by the Newport
Beach City Council and by the County's, AWG's, and SPON's respective Boards, and the
Parties acknowledge their mutual intent to use their respective best efforts to proceed
expeditiously with the preparation of CEQA Documents that meet all of the procedural and
substantive requirements of CEQA.
1.10 The execution of this MOU by the County is not to be construed as an "approval"
of the Project, as that term is defined for purposes of CEQA. As indicated above, and despite the
execution of this MOU, the County is retaining the full discretion to adopt an alternative, impose
3
mitigation measures, or disapprove the Project altogether once the requisite CEQA review is
completed. Again, the fundamental purpose of this MOU is to define the Project to be subject to
review based upon a mutually agreeable project description, and to provide the procedures and
mechanisms by which CEQA review for the Project will be conducted; at all times, such review
efforts shall comply with all applicable CEQA mandates.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
2.0 Parties' Roles. As the proprietor of JWA, the County will act as "lead agency"
and the City will be a "responsible agency" in the preparation of the CEQA Documents (as that
term is defined in Section 5. 1, infra) contemplated by this MOU for the Project. As provided in
this MOU, the County will consult with, and consider input from the City, SPON and AWG on
issues related to the preparation of the CEQA Documents. However, the County will have the
ultimate and final responsibility for the preparation of the CEQA Documents and any related
management of, and directions to any consultants assisting in the preparation of the CEQA
Documents as described further in Section 5.2, infra.
3.0 Representatives. The Parties have each designated Representatives (who are the
names listed in Sections 10.1 -10.4, infra) to act on their behalf in performing the duties required
by this MOU ( "Designated Representatives ").
4.0 Consultants.
4.1 Retention of Consultants.
The County may retain experts, professionals, consultants, and subconsultants
( "Consultant(s) "), to provide information, in the form of studies, reports and analysis, or
otherwise assist in the preparation of the CEQA Documents (as that term is defined in Section
5.1, infra). Each Consultant shall be bound by a scope of work prepared by the County, after
consultation with the Designated Representatives. The County will select the Consultant(s) to
assist in the preparation of the CEQA Documents to the extent it deems such action necessary or
desirable, after consultation with the Designated Representatives. Any final decision regarding
the identity of Consultant(s) selected, and the terms of the scope of work for each such
Consultant, will be within the sole discretion of the County.
4.2 Payment of Preparation Costs for CEQA Documents.
4.2.1 The cost of all work (including all fees, charges and costs) performed and
work product produced by the Consultants, other than attorneys, on the CEQA Documents (as
that term is defined in Section 5. 1, infra) shall be the equal responsibility of the City and County.
Within ten (10) days after approval of this MOU by the Parties, the City will deposit the sum of
$100,000.00 to a segregated account with JWA. JWA will withdraw amounts equal to fifty
percent (50 %) of the costs for the CEQA Documents from the segregated account as payments
are made. JWA will provide a statement to the City every thirty (30) days thereafter of amounts
withdrawn from the segregated account, showing charges made during the preceding monthly
period and the fifty percent (50 %) withdrawn from the account, and the City will, within ten (10)
4
days, replenish the deposit account by whatever amount is necessary to return the account to a
credit balance of $100,000.00. Upon certification of the EIR, or upon termination of this MOU
under Section 9.0, and the payment of all outstanding obligations incurred by the County, the
balance of funds on deposit shall be refunded to the City. Only the cost of work performed and
work product produced by the Consultants to study and analyze the Project, and alternatives
thereto (as defined in Section 1.7, supra) shall be the responsibility of the City. Each party to this
MOU shall be responsible for all costs and expenses related to work performed by their own
employees, attorneys or professionals that the party has retained on its own.
5.0 Document Preparation. The following principles shall apply to the preparation of
the EIR and related CEQA documents:
5.1 As the lead agency, the County shall be responsible for preparing all appropriate
"CEQA Documents," including, but not limited to, Initial Study(ies); Notice(s) of Preparation;
Notice(s) of Availability and Completion; screencheck, draft, recirculated, and /or final EIRs, and
supporting technical studies /reports; the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; CEQA
Findings; and, related environmental analysis and approval documents.
5.2 Although this MOU provides mechanisms for a collaborative approach to the
analysis of the Project's environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA, neither the City, SPON or
AWG has the authority or right to interfere with the County's exercise of its discretion and
judgment in assessing the Project's and the alternatives' environmental impacts in the CEQA
Documents.
6.0 Confidentiality. To the extent consistent with the California Public Records Act
(Gov, Code, §6250 et seq.), CEQA, and any process of law, all drafts of documents including,
but not limited to, draft CEQA Documents prepared under this MOU will be maintained as
confidential.
Therefore, during preparation of the CEQA Documents, the Parties, and their Designated
Representatives, as set forth herein, will not cause or permit pre- circulation draft materials to be
provided to any person not directly responsible for some aspect of the preparation and review
process for the specific CEQA Document(s) at issue, or whose review of any such materials is
not necessary and appropriate to completion and consideration of the Project. Generally
speaking, pre- circulation draft materials may be provided to each party's Council or Board,
employees, attorneys or professionals that the party has retained or designated as a representative
to the process to advance its interests, as well as the Consultants. Prior to providing any pre -
circulation documents to any person who is not a Designated Representative, as provided herein,
the party providing the information shall have the person execute an agreement whereby the
person agrees to be bound by the confidentiality provisions set forth in this section of this MOU.
If any party to this MOU receives a Public Records Act request or other process of law
requesting or demanding any such pre - circulation disclosure of draft materials, that party will
immediately provide copies of any such request or process to the other Parties and promptly
consult with the other Parties prior to taking any action or responding to such a request or
demand.
5
7.0 Coordination Between the Parties. The Designated Representatives of the Parties shall
conduct weekly meetings, as necessary, on a mutually agreeable day to review CEQA
Documents that have been prepared, discuss issues related to those documents, report on the
status of document preparation, and report on meetings with interested parties or discuss other
issues related to the CEQA process /documents.
7.1 The Parties shall each use their best efforts to promptly review all documents and
be prepared to discuss issues related to each document within ten (10) working days after receipt
of the pre - circulation draft document(s).
7.2 The Parties shall share any non - privileged information relevant to the Project,
including all studies, reports and draft environmental documents previously prepared by any
party regarding JWA. In addition, each party shall, upon request, provide the other Parties with a
copy of any non - privileged study, report or analysis that is reasonably related to the preparation
of the CEQA Documents under this MOU. if available, the study, report or analysis shall be
provided in the most convenient form for use (computer disk or e-mail) by the County or its
Consultants, except that no party shall be required to incur any expense associated with
converting the document to the "most convenient form."
8.0 Litigation Defense and Indemnification, and Waiver.
8.1 In the event any litigation is initiated against any one of the Parties to this MOU
on any matter related to the MOU or its implementation, including, but not limited to, the
defense of an action challenging any procedural or substantive aspect of the County's
environmental process and subsequent approvals, the City will, within thirty (30) days of its
receipt of any invoice or statement provided to it by the County, reimburse the County for any
customary and reasonable fees, costs, or other expenses incurred by the County in the defense of
any such action. In the event that litigation is initiated, the County shall, after consultation with
the City, have the absolute right to retain legal counsel of its choosing, subject to the caveat that
such legal counsel's fees, costs and other expenses shall be customary and reasonable for the
type of service(s) provided. The City shall indemnify the County until all legal proceedings have
been concluded, and this obligation continues even if the County's approvals are not validated in
the judicial procceding(s).
8.2 The City shall also indemnify SPON and AWG in the event that litigation is
pursued by a third party against all Parties to this MOU challenging the County's environmental
approval for the Project. However, the City's indemnification responsibilities shall only extend
to the payment of legal fees, costs, and other expenses incurred for joint representation of all
Parties; in other words, the City shall indemnify SPON and AWG to the extent that the County,
City, SPON and AWG are represented jointly by a single law firm selected by the County in
accordance with Section 8.I. In no event shall the City be responsible for indemnifying SPON
and /or AWG if. (i) AWG and /or SPON elect to pursue retention of individual legal counsel; or
(ii) a conflict arises between the County, City, SPON and /or AWG, thereby necessitating the
retention of separate counsel for SPON and /or AWG. In either case, the City shall not be
2
responsible for indemnifying AWG and /or SPON and the City's indemnification responsibilities
shall extend solely to the County in accordance with Section 8.1.
8.3 The City, SPON and AWG waive any right to pursue litigation against the County
and /or the City, or one another, arising from any set of facts, circumstances, or actions related to
this MOU and the CEQA Documents prepared under the MOU. The Parties also agree that the
Proposed Amended Stipulation shall include a provision that specifically includes a waiver of
any right to pursue litigation arising from any set of facts, circumstances, or actions related to the
Project/Proposed Amended Stipulation.
8.4 The Parties expressly agree that the City's, SPON's and AWG's obligations,,.
waivers and commitments set forth in Sections 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 shall have no force and effect
until the City approves and executes an Amended Stipulation. In the event that the City fails to
execute an Amended Stipulation: (i) the City shall have no obligation to indemnify and defend
the County, SPON or AWG pursuant to Sections 8.1 and 8.2; and, (ii) the City, SPON, and
AWG will retain the ability to pursue litigation against the County contrary to the requirements
of Section 8.3.
8.5 In any litigation contemplated pursuant to Sections 8.1 and 8.2, the County agrees
to make reasonable efforts to select a law firm that, absent a conflict of interest that would
prohibitjoint representation, will represent the Parties named in the lawsuit.
8.6 Within five calendar days of receipt, any party hereto shall provide written
notification to the other Parties of receipt of any claims, administrative actions, or legal actions
with respect to any of the matters described in this MOU, including but not limited to the
adequacy of the CEQA Documents. At that time and absent the existence of a conflict of interest,
the Parties shall establish procedures for the sharing of information and cooperate in the defense
of such actions brought by any third parties with respect to any of the matters covered in this
MOU.
9.0 Termination.
9.1 In the event that a party fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this
MOU at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be deemed in default in the
performance of this MOU. If such default is not cured within a period of fifteen (I5) calendar
days, or if more than fifteen (15) calendar days are reasonably required to cure the default and
the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within fifteen (15)
calendar days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and
the steps necessary to cure such default, the non - defaulting party may terminate the MOU by
giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof.
9.2 The County will provide in its contracts with any Consultants or other
professionals retained to assist in the preparation of the CEQA Documents a provision which
allows the County to terminate, without cause, any obligations for payment of work not
performed as of the date the termination notice is received by the Consultant. However, no
notice of termination will relieve either the County or City of its obligations under Section 4.2 of
7
this MOU in respect to work performed prior to the effective date of notice of termination issued
by the City or County.
10.0 Notices. Notices of all meetings related to the MOU, any copies of documents
prepared pursuant to this MOU, and any other notices permitted by this MOU shall be provided
to the individuals identified in Sections 10.1 through 10.4, infra. The contact information
provided in Sections 10.1 through 10.4 may be updated from time to time, as necessary, without
triggering the requirements of Section 11.3, infra, provided that the updated contact information
is circulated to the representatives of each party identified below.
10.1 To the City of Newport Beach:
David Kiff
City Manager
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Telephone: (949) 644 -3000
Facsimile: (949) 644 -3020
Email: dkiffnnewoortbeachca.eov
and
Aaron Harp
City Attorney
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Telephone: (949) 644 -3131
Facsimile: (949) 644 -3139
Email: aharp@acitv.newport- beach.ca.us
110.2 To the County of Orange
Alan Murphy
Airport Director
John Wayne Airport
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Telephone: (949) 252 -5183
Facsimile: (949) 252 -5178
Email: amurnhv. @ocair.com
and
Lori Ballance
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
2762 Gateway Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
Telephone: (760) 431 -9501
Facsimile: (760) 431 -9512
Email: lballaiicc@adandb.com
and
Paul Albarian
Deputy County Counsel
John Wayne Airport
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Telephone: (949) 252 -5280
Facsimile: (949) 252 -5044
Email: yalbarian enocair.com
10.3 To the Airport Working Group:
Barbara Lichman
Buchalter Nemer
18400 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 800
Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (949) 224-6292
Facsimile: (949) 720 -0182
Email: blichmannabuchalter.com
10.4 To Stop Polluting Our Newport:
Jean Watt
c/o Taber Law Group PC
P.O. Box 60036
Irvine, California 92602
Telephone: (949) 673 -8164
Email: iwatt4Rwaol.com
and
Steven M. Taber
Taber Law Group PC
P.O. Box 60036
Irvine, California 92602
Telephone: (949) 735 -8217
Facsimile: (714) 707 -4282
Email: staber @taberlaw.com
0
11.0 General Provisions.
11.1 Entire Agreement —No Implied Warranties or Guarantees.
This MOU contains the entire agreement of the Parties in regards to this MOU
and supersedes all discussions, agreements or representations made by any party prior to
execution of this MOU by the Parties. Except as expressly and explicitly provided in this MOU,
the Parties have not made any warranties or guarantees in respect of any manner addressed in, or
related to, this MOU. The Parties also hereto acknowledge and agree that the recitals set forth
above are true and correct and incorporated into the operative requirements of this MOU.
11.2 No Third Party Beneficiaries.
The Parties shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other. No
party shall have the authority to speak for, represent, or obligate another party in any way
without the prior written authority from such other party. No person or entity that is not a party
to this MOU may claim any rights in this MOU as a third party beneficiary, or otherwise.
11.3 AmendmentlSignatures /FurtherActs.
The terms of this MOU shall not be modified in any way except by a writing
signed by the Parties. This MOU may be executed in counterparts, and shall be effective as a
complete agreement upon being executed by all signatories, notwithstanding that all signatures
may not appear in a single document. The Parties will execute all such further and additional
documents as shall be reasonable, convenient, necessary, or desirable to carry out the provisions
of this MOU.
In the event that the Project, as that term is defined in Section 1.7, supra, is
substantially modified — as mutually decided by the Parties — prior to execution of the Proposed
Amended Stipulation, the Parties shall meet and confer, and assess whether to modify the terms
of the MOU. While the amendment process is pending, the terms of Section 4.2, supra, shall be
temporarily suspended, but shall be re- imposed if an amended MOU is executed by the Parties.
11.4 Controlling Law and Benue.
The laws of the State of California shall govern this MOU and all matters relating
to it and any action brought relating to this MOU shall be adjudicated in a court of competent
jurisdiction in the County of Orange.
11.5 Severability.
If any term or portion of this MOU is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this MOU shall
continue in full force and effect.
[SIGNA'T'URES ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
WHEREFORE, the County, the City, AWG and SPON approve this MOU as indicated
by the signatures of their authorized representatives below.
COUNTY OF ORANGE
Chair of the Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Paul Albarian, Deputy County Counsel
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
A Municipal Corporation
Dave Kiff,
City Manager for the City of Newport Beach
ATTEST:
Leilani Brown, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Aaron C. Harp, City Attorney
AIRPORT WORKING GROUP
Tony Khoury, President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Barbara Lichman
STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT
Marko Popovich, President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Steven Taber
[END SIGNATURES]
IVA
Exhibit A
1. To modify some existing restrictions on aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport in order to
provide increased air transportation opportunities to the air traveling public using the Airport
without adversely affecting aircraft safety, recognizing that aviation noise management is crucial to
continued increases inJWA's capacity.
2. To reasonably protect the environmental interests and concerns of persons residing in the vicinity of
the JWA, including their concerns regarding "quality of life" issues arising from the operation of
JWA, including but not limited to noise and traffic.
3. To preserve, protect and continue to implement the important restrictions established by the 1985
Settlement Agreement, which were "grandfathered" under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of
1990 and reflect and accommodate historical policy decisions of the Orange County Board of
Supervisors regarding the appropriate point of balance between the competing interests of the air
transportation and aviation community and local residents living in the vicinity of the Airport.
4. To provide a reasonable level of certainty to: surrounding local communities; airport users
(particularly scheduled commercial users); and the air traveling public regarding the level of
permitted aviation activity at JWA for a defined future period of time.
5. To consider revisions to the regulatory operational restrictions at JWA in light of the current aviation
environment, the current needs of the affected communities, and industry interests represented at
JWA.
1
Exhibit B
Principal Restrictions
Proposed
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Project
Term
Through December 31, 2030
Through December 31, 2030
Through December 31, 2030
Not Applicable
Curfew
Through December 31, 2035
Through December 31, 2035
Through December 31, 2035
Through December 31, 2020
Annual Passenger Limit
(number of million annual
passengers [MAP])
1/1/2016- 12/31/2020
10.8 MAP
10.8 MAP
10.8 MAP
16.9 MAP
1/1/2021 - 12/31/2025
11.8 MAP
11.4 MAP
13.0 MAP
16.9 MAP
1/1/2026- 12/31/2030
12.2 or 12.5 MAP*
12.8 MAP
15.0 MAP
16.9 MAP
Passenger Flights
(number of Class A ADDS for
passenger service)
1/1/2016- 12/31/2020
85 Class A ADDS
107 Class A ADDS ( +22)
100 Class A ADDS ( +15)
228 Class A ADDS ( +143)
1/1/2021- 12/31/2025
95 Class A ADDS ( +10)
120 Class A ADDS ( +13)
110 Class A ADDS ( +10)
228 Class A ADDS ( +0)
1/1/2026- 12/31/2030
95 Class A ADDS
135 Class ADDS ( +15)
115 Class A ADDS ( +5)
228 Class A ADDS ( +0)
Cargo Flights
(number of Class A ADDS for
all-cargo service)
1/1/2016-12/31/2030
4 Class A ADDS
4 Class A ADDS
4 Class A ADDS
4 Class A ADDS
Passenger Loading Bridges
1/1/2016- 12/31/2020
20
20
20
No Limit
1/1/2021 - 12/31/2030
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
Table Notes:
Alternative A was delineated based on information contained in the FAA's APO Terminal Area Forecast Detail Report" (dated January 1013).
Alternative B was delineated based on input from JWA's commercial air service providers.
Alternative C was delineated based on the physical capacity afJWA's airfield.
Trigger for capacity increase to 12.5 MAP: air carriers must be within 5 percent of 11.8 MAP (i.e., 11.11 MAP) in any one year during the January 1,
2021 through December 31, 2025 time frome.
NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL AIRPORT POLICY
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council's primary objective is to protect Newport Beach residents from
the impacts of commercial aircraft operations at and from John Wayne Airport
(JWA). The City Council believes that the impacts related to JWA are now, and
will continue to be, the most significant threat to the quality of life of Newport
Beach residents. For the last 30 years, the City, and community groups
concerned about adverse airport impacts, have developed and implemented
strategies to control those impacts and these efforts, which have been supported
by the County for the last 20 years, have made JWA one of the most "community
friendly" airports in the nation.
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 Newport Beach residents most adversely
impacted by airport operations.
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 TWA 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
1
A -17
help serve Orange County's air transportation demand at facilities other than
JWA.
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 Newport Beach are located under or near the
departure pattern of commercial, and some general aviation, aircraft operating
out of JWA. The City has, since the mid- 1970's, developed and implemented
strategies designed to minimize the adverse impacts - such as noise and traffic -
of JWA on its residents and their quality of life. The City's initial efforts focused
on involvement in "route authority" proceedings conducted by the Civil
Aviation Board and litigation challenging County decisions that could increase
the level or frequency of aircraft noise events. However, the City and
community groups concerned about JWA such as the Airport Working Group
(AWG) and Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) re- evaluated the litigation
strategy after the Board of Supervisors (Board) approved the 1985 JWA Master
Plan (Master Plan) because of changes in State and Federal law as well as the
factors that impact air transportation demand in Orange County and the region.
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
2
A -17
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.
In 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 Newport Beach, Costa Mesa,
Orange, Santa Ana, Tustin and Anaheim (known collectively, together with
Newport Beach, as the "Corridor Cities "). This process culminated in City,
County, SPON and AWG approval of amendments to the 1985 Settlement
Agreement (2002 Amendments - Exhibit A) that: (a) eliminated the "AA" class of
aircraft; (b) increased the maximum number of noise regulated air carrier ADD
from 73 to 85; (c) increased the maximum number of air cargo ADD from 2 to 4
(the County is authorized to allocate two air cargo ADD to air carriers pending
requests for use of those ADD by air cargo carriers); (d) increased the service
level limit from 8.4 to 10.3 MAP until January 1, 2011 and to 10.8 MAP on and
after January 1, 2011 (with 500,000 seats allocated to regional jets); and
(e) increased the maximum number of passenger loading bridges from 14 to 20.
The 2002 Amendments also eliminated the floor area restrictions on the size of
the terminal and the "cap" on public parking spaces.
3
A -17
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 Newport Beach
residents. The flight and service level restrictions 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 do not adversely impact airport
capacity or airport safety.
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 Newport Beach residents about the legal framework could lead to
unreasonable expectations and ill- advised decisions and /or strategies. The
following is a brief summary of some of the more important laws applicable to
the control of aircraft operations and airports.
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 Newport Beach has no authority to
adopt ordinances or resolutions that regulate airport noise. In fact, ANCA
severely constrains the right of the proprietor to regulate Stage 3 aircraft
operations. ANCA states that any "noise or access' restriction on
commercial aircraft operating today must be "reviewed and approved" by
the FAA. The FAA review is based on an extensive proprietor funded
study of the impacts of the proposed restriction. As of this date, the FAA
has not approved any proposed Stage 3 aircraft noise or access restriction
and the consensus of aviation attorneys is that the FAA would be hostile
4
A -17
to any such a restriction. The 1985 Settlement Agreement predated ANCA
and was "grandfathered" from its provisions. The 2002 Amendments
were not subject to FAA review and approval, as confirmed by the FAA
letter, because they did not adversely impact airport capacity or airport
safety.
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
5
A47
E. POLICY
1. Edmajy Objective
The City Council's primary objective is to protect Newport Beach
residents from the adverse impacts of commercial aircraft operations at
and from John Wayne Airport OWA). The City Council believes that
airport impacts are now, and will continue to be, the most significant
threat to the quality of life of Newport Beach residents. Accordingly, the
City should develop, modify as necessary and aggressively implement
strategies and action plans that are designed to achieve the primary
objective. The strategies and plans must consider and respect the complex
legal, political and economic factors relevant to airport operations and
impacts.
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
IL The opinions and concerns of Orange County residents and
business owners.
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
6
A -17
City's legal authority to regulate aircraft operations or airport service
levels.
3. TWA 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 Newport Beach
residents. The City Council shall pursue further amendments to adhere to
the following fundamental principles with respect to the JWA Settlement
Agreement and any modification or amendment under consideration:
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 Newport Beach residents most impacted by JWA.
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. TWA 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
7
A -17
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 (RN1S) 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 altemative(s).
5. Alternative Transportation Service
The City Council recognizes that there is presently no feasible site for a
second air carrier airport in Orange County and that residential and
commercial development is likely to result in increased air transportation
demand over time. Accordingly, the City Council should support
opportunities to serve some Orange County air transportation demand at
airports other than JWA including:
a. Promoting circulation and transportation improvements from
Orange County residential and business communities to outlying
airports with capacity in excess of current operations levels such as
Ontario Airport and San Bernardino International Airport.
b. Supporting development of new or expanded air carrier facilities in
locations that are, or could be with appropriate transportation
links, convenient to Orange County residents.
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 Orange County air transportation
demand at facilities other than JWA.
8
A -17
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 Corridor City
coalition. The Corridor City coalition was a major force in Board approval
of the 2002 Amendments. The Corridor City coalition was built on a
foundation of mutual interest in JWA operations and regular meetings
between members of the respective City Councils supported by
interaction between city managers and /or city attorneys. The City should
continue to arrange regular meetings of the Corridor City coalition to
update members on any activity that could be relevant to Orange County
air transportation or JWA operations.
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
9
A -17
and staff will regularly meet with the leaders and /or members of citizen -
based organizations concerned about airport impacts.
g. 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 Newport Beach residents. The City Council shall designate the City
Manager as the employee primarily responsible for coordinating the
implementation of this Policy. The City Manager, personally or through
one or more designees, shall implement this Policy including regular
communications with residents, the leaders of community organizations
and the Corridor Cities. The City Manager shall periodically report the
status of implementation to the City Council and shall perform the
following:
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 Regional Airport Plans /Programs. The City Manager
should continuously monitor efforts or plans by any agency or
entity to develop new airports, expand existing facilities or
otherwise provide additional air or ground transportation service
that could serve Orange County air transportation demand.
C. Monitoring Regional Planning Agencies. Agencies such as SLAG
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
Orange County air transportation issues in a variety of ways. The
City Manager should routinely monitor all proposed State
legislation and, to the extent feasible, potentially relevant Federal
legislation and notify the City Council and the Aviation Committee
of any legislation that is relevant to the City's ability to protect its
residents from impacts related to JWA operations.
10
A -17
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.
Adopted - February 14,1972
Amended - October 14,1975
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
11