Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 - FAA's Implementation of NextGen at John Wayne AirportQ SEW Pp�T CITY OF �m z NEWPORT BEACH c�<,FORN'P City Council Staff Report September 26, 2017 Agenda Item No. 6 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Dave Kiff, City Manager - 949-644-3001, dkiff@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Dave Kiff, City Manager PHONE: 949-644-3001 TITLE: Resolution 2017-63 Relating to the FAA's Implementation of NextGen at John Wayne Airport FA 334:7±Tibio This item provides an update from the City Manager regarding the FAA's implementation of NextGen at John Wayne Airport, and asks the City Council to consider a resolution stating the City's intent and concerns. RECOMMENDATION: a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; b) Adopt Resolution 2017-63, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Relating to the Federal Aviation Administration's Implementation of the Southern California Metroplex Project at John Wayne Airport. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Not applicable DISCUSSION: Over the past few years, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has implemented its NextGen effort across the nation. The FAA's goal with NextGen is to improve safety and the efficiency of air carrier traffic by (in effect) narrowing departure and arrival paths down more specific and repeatable tracks. In our region, the FAA studied the 21 or so airports in and around Southern California (calling this the So Cal MetroPlex) and has implemented three new departure patterns for John Wayne Airport's (JWA's) major commercial air carriers. General Aviation planes generally do not fly these patterns. The three NextGen patterns out of JWA are known as: 6-1 Resolution 2017-63 Relating to the FAA's Implementation of NextGen at John Wayne Airport September 26, 2017 Page 2 • PIGGN (for flights going east of Las Vegas — about half of all commercial carriers at JWA take this route) • FINZZ (for flights going to Las Vegas or Salt Lake City — <10% of all JWA flights go here) • HHERO (addressed in environmental documents as HAYLO, for flights going north to the Bay Area, Portland, Seattle, and more — a little over 40% of all JWA flights take this route) - -Major- .. - Patterns Name of "i ers. Key Da + Deparhl. rt informal ConcprnDestina Pafttern hat Ue it tions. Implement 72�, .,City's DIGGN 50% East c- Las March 2, '17 25 -May -17 `- Started tcc -ar east, then NIay mcdification may Degas have moved route a little too far west I,Aeyhe ANZZ <10`i6 51-G, LAS April 27,'17 modified Implementation appears to be a little too far s/17/17, east 12.?V1 M ay be HHERO �. April 27, ,5FO. OAK, .7 >406 1 modified Implementation appears tc I:e a tt e tcc Sar PD}C, SES. &.17/17, east 10/12/17 In Fall of 2016, the City Council authorized the filing of a lawsuit against the FAA regarding NextGen's implementation at JWA. The County of Orange intervened in this litigation and the City of Laguna Beach filed its own litigation. Please go to this link to view the letter that formalized many of our concerns. This litigation is now in Federal court, and we do not have an update to offer at this time. Current Concerns — Why are Planes Louder, and Going Over My Head? As noted in the chart above, the City believes that the paths of HHERO and FINZZ appear to be too far to the east, while PIGGN appears to be too far to the west. More correct departures would send flights down the middle of the Upper Bay, in effect splitting "the Narrows" between The Bluffs and Noise Monitoring Station #6 as well as crossing directly over Noise Monitoring Station #7. Staff works on this issue with the County nearly daily, and believe that our current collaborative approach to working with the FAA on a better path may lead to a successful resolution of these concerns. However, working with the FAA takes time, as we are one of 21 airports affected by NextGen. Residents can help by contacting the FAA directly. While this is challenging to do (the FAA provides only a mailing address for its MetroPlex related concerns), residents can access a form on the City's webpage, contact the City Manager's Office, or contact the County's Noise and Access office and we will pass along the comments to the FAA directly. 6-2 Resolution 2017-63 Relating to the FAA's Implementation of NextGen at John Wayne Airport September 26, 2017 Page 3 About the Noise Abatement Departure Procedure (NADP) JWA is a heavily regulated airport, but the well-known "John Wayne Airport Takeoff" has some misunderstandings about it. The FAA has provided general guidance for two NADPs for JWA – they are: • Close -In. For this departure, there is a thrust reduction followed by a flap retraction. This allows for an initially faster climb in close proximity to the runway. This one appears more dramatic to the passenger and the person observing from the ground. • Distant. For this departure, there is a flap retraction followed by a thrust reduction. Aircraft are lower in the initial phase of this Distant NADP, but are higher in the distant portion of the departure (versus the Close -In NADP). When a more modern plane flies the Distant NADP, the difference in noise between a Close -In and Distant NADP can be minimal. Ultimately, airlines develop their own procedures for each individual style of aircraft (Boeing, Airbus, and the types of each such as the 737 or A320). This is especially true at JWA because airlines have to adhere to the Single Event Noise restrictions at noise monitoring stations. Importantly, the Close -In NADP has never been required. To re- emphasize, what IS required is that a plane departs in a manner that does not cause the plane to exceed noise thresholds (in single -event decibel levels) at any one of the seven noise monitoring stations (NMSs) on the departure path. Planes that use the Distant NADP may not, from a person's perspective on the ground (and sometimes in the plane) seem to be using any NADP. But it is likely that they still are – it's just not the older one (the Close -In) one – that feels and looks more dramatic and that in years past, more planes had to use. About Aircraft Emissions The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) governs emissions from aircraft. According to the US EPA, "aircraft account for 12 percent of all U.S. transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and 3 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions." In July 2016, then -US EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed a US EPA action entitled, "Finding that Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution that May Reasonably Be Anticipated to Endanger Public Health and Welfare." These findings were that: (1) Concentrations of six well -mixed GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations (the endangerment finding), and (2) GHGs emitted from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft are contributing to the air pollution—the mix of those six GHGs in the atmosphere—that endangers public health and welfare (the cause or contribute finding, or contribution finding). 6-3 Resolution 2017-63 Relating to the FAA's Implementation of NextGen at John Wayne Airport September 26, 2017 Page 4 The EPA's findings are in preparation for a "future domestic rulemaking process" to adopt future GHG standards. Any future proposed aircraft engine standards would be open to public comment and review before they could take effect. As far as the City knows, at this time there is no specific intent on the US EPA's part to engage in a future domestic rulemaking process regarding aircraft engine standards. You may wish to contact your Congressional representatives or the US EPA directly for more information or to express concerns. Common Questions about NextGen and JWA. Q: Something has changed around my house. I see and hear the planes differently. What happened, and what's the City doing about it?' A: NextGen indeed changed departure patterns. In some cases, planes are closer to Eastbluff and The Bluffs and Harbor Cove. In other cases, planes are closer to Westcliff and Dover Shores. As a result, if the paths are slightly too far east or too far west, people near the flight paths may be seeing more planes and hearing them more often. The City can't dictate flight paths or correct (on our own) what we perceive as problems with PIGGN, HHERO, and FINZZ, but we have tried anyway by working closely with the County and the FAA to try and improve the NextGen departures. Q: Flights appear to be lower now. Is that so? A: We haven't seen that yet, but we're watching it with you and the County. When we compare altitudes between March — August 2013 and March — August 2015, for example, we see that most carriers are flying at or above 2013's levels. United/Continental appeared to be an exception in this case. The City does not have an ability to govern the altitude at which planes fly — only the FAA can do that. But we have asked the County for a current update to the 2016 study and will take that to the Aviation Committee as soon as we get it. Q: What about emissions and health impacts? And all this black stuff on my porch and patio furniture? A: There's no easy way to determine what contaminant may be coming from what source. If we live close to Coast Highway or a major street like Jamboree or MacArthur, our homes will be impacted from truck and bus and car exhaust. Planes from JWA release exhaust as well. Today, we don't see a clear or easy way to determine how to look at an emission footprint and say "this is from a truck" or "this is from a plane." Newport Beach residents have in the past asked the City government to see if a "health impacts" study could be done of residents who live near the JWA flight paths. We did follow up on how or whether that could be done, including with UCI. A meaningful health impacts study follows a specific group of people over many years. It can work best if persons remain in a fixed location over the duration of the study period, agree to divulge extensive and personal medical information, and if we have an ability to factor in or out outside non -airport pollutants. We don't think that capability exists here. In 2008-2009, the City hired a consultant to do a limited look at trying to find a "footprint" associated with jet fuel emissions. Her work (released in 2010) is here. on Resolution 2017-63 Relating to the FAA's Implementation of NextGen at John Wayne Airport September 26, 2017 Page 5 Q: What can I do on my own? A: You can stay updated on NextGen issues by subscribing to our Monthly Reports. Please email us here to subscribe. You can also contact the JWA Noise and Access office if you see or hear something that's not typical. You are always welcome to contact the FAA to let them know of your specific concerns. Q: What else should I know? Is there any hope out there for improvement? A: Certainly there are reasons to be optimistic. Among those are: • The FAA and the County are still working with us closely as noted above. • The FAA has recently posted a "two turn" plan called the STAYY (see chart below) for the Upper Bay that leads us to infer that this important improvement is on the horizon. • New generations of planes — like the Boeing 737 -MAX and the Airbus 320 neo — are entering fleets. These planes appear to be quieter and emit less pollutants than their predecessors. Today, the single Frontier Airbus 320 neo (neo = "new engine option") that departs from JWA is one of the quietest departures from the airport each day. Concept far a " Req Llired Navigational Performance" (RNP) Departffe from JWA l z; RAW -a_*�� y � +n Aw"ytiCl Bf#C r y LRREw r rte, r .i 6-5 Resolution 2017-63 Relating to the FAA's Implementation of NextGen at John Wayne Airport September 26, 2017 Page 6 Summary Thoughts This item comes to the City Council in part because residents have suggested that the City is not doing enough, nor doing enough quickly, to address concerns on the east and west side of the Upper Bay. A petition on iPetition.com expresses this belief (see Attachment D). Staff acknowledges that concern. We do stress that the litigation was a major action by the City Council back in Fall 2016, as we were one of only a handful of agencies to take this step. We also know that while we may be working regularly on this issue, not all residents are aware of our actions. We have not provided as many proactive updates as we could have done to improve this knowledge and communication. City staff is always happy to discuss this and any other issue involving John Wayne Airport — please e-mail us at dkiff _newportbeachca.gov or call us at 949-644-3001. This staff report is not sufficient in detailing the City and community's 40+ years of activism regarding JWA. The proposed resolution itself attempts to summarize that a bit better within the "whereas" sections. So too do some of the attachments, some of which have not been referenced in the discussion but are noteworthy. These include: Attachment A — the proposed Resolution Attachment B — Official City action on MetroPlex (though not exhaustive —we did not include the City's 25 -page comment letter on the Draft EA, but that is on the City's website) Attachment C — Some history on the STAYY procedure. This may be helpful for those who are unfamiliar with its origins. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (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, 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). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Proposed Resolution No. 2017-63 Attachment B — Selected Official City Action on MetroPlex Attachment C — Selected History on the STAYY Procedure Attachment D — Petition from iPetition.com ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 2017-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA METROPLEX PROJECT AT JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach ("City") and the Newport Beach City Council ("City Council") have maintained as a primary objective the goal of protecting community residents from the impacts of commercial operations at John Wayne Airport; WHEREAS, to address the concerns of its residents regarding the Airport, the City Council first convened the Aviation Committee ("Committee") in 1979, and, since then, it has met continuously to, among other things, monitor the impacts of John Wayne Airport ("JWA") on the City and residential quality of life as well as to oversee the implementation of Council Policy A-17 ("Airport Policy"); WHEREAS, the Airport is owned by the County of Orange (County) and the federal government, and it is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that controls where planes fly in the sky. While the City has no legal authority to directly regulate operations at the Airport, in 1985 the City, after litigation with the County and joined by citizen partners within the Airport Working Group (AWG) and Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) entered into and helped create the landmark JWA Settlement Agreement (Agreement); WHEREAS, this Agreement is the only airport operating agreement like it in the United States intended to align the Airport with neighborhood quality of life concerns, including passenger caps per year, limits on the amount of the loudest flights, the placement and continuance of a curfew, and more; WHEREAS, when the Federal Government in 1990 took actions against the Agreement, the City through aggressive lobbying efforts and with extensive community support (including from AWG and SPON) successfully obtained a grandfathering provision in the 1990 Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) which recognized the Agreement and protected the existing limitations on access and noise set forth in the Agreement; WHEREAS, the Federal Government acting through the FAA sought in or about 1990 to modify noise abatement departure procedures at JWA, the City aggressively and actively participated in and assisted in the testing of departure procedures conducted at JWA which resulted in the development of FAA Advisory Circular 91-53A, Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADP); WHEREAS, the Agreement was extended and amended over time (in both 2002 and 2014), generally to continue the curfew hours and to allow modest changes in the passenger cap and to the amount of "Class A" Average Daily Departures (ADDs), all in compliance with the requirements of the 1990 Airport Noise and Capacity Act ("ANCA"); WHEREAS, also in 2006 the City, consistent with its Airport Policy negotiated a Cooperative Agreement (also referred to as the Spheres Agreement) to protect against further physical expansion of the Airport; WHEREAS, other actions taken by the City in response to concerns expressed by the community and in furtherance of its Airport Policy include the 2006 ARTS Study ("JWA-OC Airport - Departure Noise Impact Analysis"), 2008's "Go Local" study that evaluated JWA use and transit connections, 2009's air quality testing analysis done by Dr. Karleen Sudol-Boyle, and the convening of the Corridor Cities group (including the cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Tustin, Orange, Laguna Woods, Laguna Beach, and others) leading up to the 2014 Settlement Agreement extension and amendment; 6-7 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, the City has and continues on a daily basis to monitor all operations at the Airport for its residents and respond to concerns expressed by residents about noise; curfews; departure procedures and generally where planes fly; WHEREAS, traditionally the major air carriers' Conventional Standard Instrument Departure (SID) procedures out of JWA had allowed for a wider disbursement of departures over larger parts of the community versus narrow, repeated departures over a smaller focused area; WHEREAS, in 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") began adjustments to the departure procedures, including the implementation of "Area Navigation" ("RNAV") SIDs, which involves a more precise and repeatable path driven more by technology in the cockpit and satellite -based navigation than a Conventional SID; WHEREAS, during 2009 and 2010, the City of Newport Beach (City), responding to concerns of the community, worked closely with the County and then with the FAA to correct errors in JWA's first RNAV SID (known as the DUUKE, then DUUKE 2, then STREL) as the DUUKE 1 and DUUKE 2 both took planes further east) impacting the Bluffs, Eastbluff, and Corona del Mar) than the traditional departures from JWA; WHEREAS, after the DUUKE discussions, the City recognized it had a continuing substantial interest in ensuring aircraft operations at JWA do not significantly affect its residents and recognizing problems with RNAV and how it would affect our community. As in 2012 the City hired GE/Naverus to conduct a feasibility study to determine if a "Required Navigational Performance" or RNP Departure — also referred to by City staff as the Upper Bay's "Two Turn" departure — would work at JWA in an attempt to create a departure path that would navigate successfully down the middle of the Upper Newport Bay; WHEREAS, GE/Naverus concluded that an RNP for JWA was feasible. The City communicated this data to the FAA in April 2013; WHEREAS, the FAA responded to the City in June 2013 stating that the FAA "may be able to advise further (on the City's RNP request) sometime in mid-to-late 2014," following an assessment of a similar RNP proposal for Hartsfield -Jackson Atlanta International Airport; WHEREAS, in late 2013, the City, County and the Aviation Committee became aware of the FAA's intent to apply more RNAV SIDs across many if not all major airports in the nation, calling this effort "NextGen"; WHEREAS, the Committee and Council were briefed on the possible impacts of NextGen starting in October 2013; WHEREAS, at the time, City Council members, Committee members, City staff, residents, and others noted that NextGen's overall goal — to improve safety — was laudable, but the consequences of repeated departures down specific pathways over Newport Beach would be deleterious to the community overall and not in the spirit of past actions which fanned flights across a wider region. Moreover, the City recognized that minor changes that might seem insignificant to the FAA in the development of NextGen would result in noticeable changes to residents of Newport Beach; WHEREAS, in January 2014, the FAA sent out an "Early Notification Letter" ("Letter") setting forth a Draft Environmental Assessment ("Draft EA") for the Southern California Metroplex project, which kicked off NextGen in the Southern California region including JWA and up to 21 airports; WHEREAS, the City responded to the Letter in February 2014 expressing the City's concern about the Draft EA and how adequately the Draft EA would address noise, air quality, and cumulative impacts among other things; .: Resolution No. 2017 - Page 3 of 5 WHEREAS, the FAA later created the Draft EA, and the City formally responded to it on September 4, 2015 via a 58 -page letter. This letter included the HMMH Report, which provided an even more detailed analysis of the Draft EA. The City's document was one of the most comprehensive legal and technical analysis and critique of any NextGen Draft EA submitted in the United States; WHEREAS, the FAA's Draft EA proposed three new RNAV SIDs for JWA, including the PIGGN (representing about half of all JWA departures), the HHERO (then called the HAYLO, representing more than 40% of all departures) and the FINZZ (representing less than '10%); WHEREAS, the City's correspondence towards the Draft EA noted, among other things, that the Draft EA was vague, lacked quantifiable information about increases in noise, removed the TOING waypoint at Noise Monitoring Station #7 (NMS #7), did not address the use of Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADPs) from JWA, failed to properly recognize the JWA Settlement Agreement, the failure of the FAA to recognize that seemingly insignificant modifications in the departure paths from the Airport resulted in a noticeable increase in noise for residents nor did it "take a hard look at the potentially significant air quality and greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions" of NextGen at JWA (among other things); WHEREAS, included in the City's Draft EA comments is the concept that the JWA Settlement Agreement reflects community consensus on the nature and extent of facility and operational improvements that may be implemented at JWA. For more than 30 years, this Agreement has balanced airport operational capacity with the legitimate environmental concerns of the surrounding communities; WHEREAS, the FAA failed to issue a timely response to the City's letter, and the Final EA did not address the City's concerns; WHEREAS, shortly after the FAA released the Final EA, the City Council authorized the ,filing of a legal action against the FAA based, in part, on the FAA's failure.to address the City's concerns in the Final EA; WHEREAS, the City was later joined by the County, who intervened in the lawsuit, and the City of Laguna Beach, which filed its own lawsuit related to the Final EA; WHEREAS, the FAA began implementation of the three new RNAV SIDS at JWA starting on March 2, 2017 (PIGGN), and later following on April 27, 2017 (HHERO and FINZZ); WHEREAS, at the time, the City observed that flights from all three RNAV SIDs tended to be eastward of the former STREL departure, moving easterly of NMS #7; WHEREAS, on May 25 2017, the FAA modified PIGGN slightly, resulting in a movement of PIGGN to the west of the Upper Newport Bay; WHEREAS, in spring and summer 2017, residents in Newport Beach communities like Eastbluff, the Bluffs, One Ford Road, Westcliff, Dover Shores, Balboa Island, the Balboa Peninsula, Irvine Terrace, Harbor Cove, Villa Point, and other areas began to express significant concerns from noise to the City, the County, and the FAA about the PIGGN, HHERO, and FINZZ; WHEREAS, at the same time, City and County staff were observing the departure paths and noting to the FAA that the target of NMS #7 was not being hit, nor were flights navigating down the middle of "the Narrows" of the Upper Bay near NMS #6; .• Resolution No. 2017 - Page 4 of 5 WHEREAS, during summer 2017, the FAA printed and made publicly available the "STAYY" RNP departure procedure, which takes two turns within the confines of the Upper Newport Bay to avoid residential areas both to the east and west and is similar to the initial concepts that the City presented to the FAA with GE/Naverus in April 2013 and again in March 2016; WHEREAS, during summer 2017, Newport Beach residents began a Petition on "iPetition" to the FAA, City, and County entitled, "Too Loud & Too Low: Stop JWA Noise Now", which raised substantial issues about the adequacy of the Final EA prepared by the FAA in order to implement the Metroplex Project. As of the date of this resolution, the petition has over 1,100 signatures; WHEREAS, the Petition's criticisms are shared by the City and specifically addressed in the current pending federal litigation with the FAA. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the City believes and affirms that: Section 1. The City shall, to the fullest extent of the law, continue to maintain as a primary objective the goal of protecting its residents from the impacts of commercial operations at John Wayne Airport. Section 2. The City shall continue to work to ensure that aircraft operations at JWA do not significantly affect residents and that any changes in aircraft operations at JWA are consistent with protections provided for in the JWA Settlement Agreement as amended. Section 3. The City shall continue to take the necessary actions to protect residents from the inadequacies of the Draft Environmental Assessment created for the purpose of implementing the Metroplex Project, as demonstrated by the City's October 2016 legal action. Section 4. The City shall continue to protect residents against changes implemented by the Metroplex Project that would adversely impact the noise abatement departure procedures or the noise limits, as reflected in, among other documents, the 1985 Settlement Agreement, as amended. Section 5. The City shall continue to pursue modifying and/or perfecting the current FINZZ, HHERO and PIGGN departures or subsequently introduced departure procedures to ensure to the greatest extent possible that southerly departures from JWA fly down open water in the middle of the Upper Newport Bay and so that any proposed and/or initiated change in departure procedures do not result in a noticeable increase in noise for residential areas located along the Upper Newport Bay. Section 6. The City shall continue to interface with the County and the FAA on efforts similar to the currently proposed STAYY departure procedure, introduced by the FAA in the summer of 2017 which as a result of environmental analysis and community outreach, determined a public need for a modernized departure procedure. Section 7. The City shall embark on an update to the 2008 ARTS Study (JWA/OC Airport — Departure Noise Impact Analysis) in cooperation with the Aviation Committee, the County and resident groups to further understand noise changes following Metroplex. Section 8. The City encourages all air carriers and pilots who can reach a higher altitude and use the appropriate Noise Abatement Departure Procedures in a safe manner should do so immediately. 6-10 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 5 of 5 Section 9. The City states its support for US Representative Dana Rohrabacher's amendments to HR 2997 that would attempt to maximize altitude as well as the FAA's prioritization of community concerns above air carrier efficiency. Section 10. The City will encourage and facilitate the transmittal of resident and City concerns about Metroplex directly to the FAA, given how complex it can be for residents alone to communicate with the FAA's Metroplex staff. Section 11. The City appreciates the County of Orange's participation and effort in addressing issues with noise and NextGen to ensure that JWA remains a good neighbor to our community, and to protect our overall quality of life. Section 12: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 13: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 14: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("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, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Section 15.: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 26th day of September 2017. Kevin Muldoon Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY TTORNEY'S OFFICE CITY C. Harp City Attorney 6-11 Attachment B Past City Action on MetroPlex 6-12 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 13, 2014 U.S. DOT - FAA Attention: SoCal OAPM Environmental Western Service Center, Operations Support Group 1601 Lind Avenue, SW Renton, Washington 98057 Via e-mail: 9-ANM-SoCalOAPM@faa.gov Re: Environmental Assessment, Southern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex - Early Notification Letter To Whom It May Concern: The City of Newport Beach, California ("the City") is appreciative of the opportunity to respond to your recent correspondence dated January 16, 2014 concerning the above matter. As a city of approximately 87,000 residents and the next door neighbor of John Wayne Airport ("JWA"), the City is not only impacted by departures and arrivals at JWA but also by over flights from Long Beach Airport and, to a lesser extent, Los Angeles Airport. As your correspondence identifies "... The project may involve changes in aircraft flight paths and/or altitudes in certain areas..." and "... changes In aircraft routing that are proposed to occur below 10,000 feet above ground level....", accordingly the City wishes to express its concerns regarding the Environmental Assessment (EA) and is therefore hopeful that the EA will address the appropriate issues, including but not limited to: alternative analysis and development; air quality impacts; cumulative impacts and noise impacts. At the same time, the City has a long standing and cooperative relationship with JWA. JWA and the City have worked faithfully to address airport noise issues that confront the neighboring communities. In view of the long standing relationship with JWA, the City would respectfully request that the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") take into account the historical relationship of the City and JWA in preparing the EA and any proposed airspace procedure change that could potentially impact flight tracks or noise levels within the environs of JWA and its neighbors. The City has therefore outlined the issues to be studied as follows: • Coordination —As noted above, the City and JWA have worked cooperatively for 30+ years to address the impacts of noise at JWA. It is therefore necessary that the FAA take into account City Hall • 100 Civic Center Drive • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 6-13 Page 2 of 3 the cooperative and successful accomplishments of the parties in addressing any changes in airspace procedures, including but not limited to changes in flight paths; altitude changes; and aircraft routing that are proposed to occur that could impact flight tracks or noise levels within the environs of 1WA. • Purpose and Need - The EA should clearly identify the underlying purpose and need to which the FAA is responding in proposing the alternatives (40 CFR 1502.13). The purpose of the proposed action is typically the specific objectives activity, while the need for the proposed action may be to eliminate a broader underlying problem or take advantage of an opportunity. • Alternatives Analysis - The National Environmental Policy Act requires evaluation of reasonable alternatives, including but not limited to those that may not be within the jurisdiction of the lead agency (40 CFR Section 1502.14(c)) and any amendments thereto. A robust range of alternatives should include options for avoiding significant environmental impacts. The EA should provide a clear discussion of the reasons for the elimination of alternatives which are not evaluated in detail. • Noise Impact - The EA should evaluate how the proposed action(s) will impact existing noise levels in comparison with current airport noise levels and compatible land use in the project affected areas. The City suggests a complete analysis of the noise impacts be conducted, including but not limited to the guidance as provided by FAA Order 1050.1E. Appendix A, Section 14 for proper FAA analysis of noise impacts, as well as any necessary standards as adopted by the State of California and/or other local agencies. The City suggests as noted previously that any evaluation take into account the past strong and successful working relationship between JWA and the City in addressing noise impact issues. • Air Quality - The EA should provide a detailed discussion of ambient air conditions (baseline or existing conditions), National Ambient Air Quality Standards, criteria pollutant nonattainment areas, and potential air quality impacts of the proposed project (including cumulative and indirect impacts). Such an evaluation is necessary to assure compliance with State and Federal air quality regulations, and to disclose the potential impacts from temporary or cumulative degradation of air quality. The EA should describe and estimate air emissions from potential construction and maintenance activities, as well as proposed mitigation measures to minimize those emissions. • Cumulative Impacts - The cumulative impacts analysis should identify how resources, ecosystems and communities in the vicinity of the project have already been, or will be, affected by past, present, or future activities in the project area. These resources should be characterized in terms of their response to change and capacity to withstand stresses. Trends data should be used to establish a baseline for the affected resources, to evaluate the significance of historical degradation, and to predict the environmental effects of the project components. Given that much of the apparent project area is surrounded by water, this concern may be of significance. 6-14 Page 3 of 3 The City wquld also recommend focusing on, resources of concern or resources`that are "at risk and/or are significantly impacted by the proposed project before mitigatloo, For this project, the FAA should conduct a thorough.assessment of the cumulative impacts to aquatic and biological resources, especially in the context of other developments occurring and proposed in the area. Thank you again allowing the City the opportunity to comment on the proposed EA: If you have any questions regarding the City's comments or wish to discuss the same, do not hesitate to contact the City by e -mailing the City Manager at dkiff@newportbeachca,gov or by calling 949- 644-3001. Very truly yours, Mayor Rush Hill City of Newport Beach cc: Members of the Newport Beach City Council The Honorable John M.W. Moorlach, Grange County Board of Supervisors The Honorable .Dana Rohrabacher, Member of Congress Mr. Alan Murphy, John Wayne Airport Mr. Tom Edwards, consultant to the. City 6-15 FAA and NextGen Newport Beach City Council —study session Tuesday,Octoher13,2015 MAGVAB • Flights now • Runway headings changed September 2014 • Runways did not move • Departure specs redone • Error? Too far west? • Two corrections (9/17/15 and 10/15/15) NextGen • Flights in 2016-17 • Planning underway • Nationwide effort • Narrowed, more precise departure paths • Likely all aligned with current STREL • Some problems WEA Two Separate Issues! • Two Issues! • Magvar • FAA's NextGen/ So Cal MetroPlex effort • Next Gen - the proposed departure procedures: • MUSEL7 4 FINNZ (to be finalized "March 2, 2017") • STREL3/4 4 PIGGN (...November 10, 2016) • CHANL2 4 HAYLO (...March 2, 2017) • Our Options Background • NextGen: • Making the airspace more safe via RNAV • Repeatable departures and arrivals • Improving efficiency (fuel use, time, emissions) • MetroPlex • Looking at NextGen in congested airspaces —multiple airports at one time. NextGen [and MetroPlex) 9/19/2017 6-16 Non-RNAV RNAV ["Area Navigation"] • MUSEL7, CHANL2 • Current STREL • Imprecise • New FINNZ, HAYLO • More dispersed • Precise • Varies • Repeatable • Fanned • Consistent • Narrow RNAV v Hon-RNAV 9/19/2017 6-17 ForFOghts GDing_ Name I RNAVorNot?I%FIOWn/CWI lEast(LAS,SLCI MU,SEt7 I Not <M% East/South (PHX,DFW,STt,ORD) 5TRe3(4 RNAV 5px. Norh/West SFO, OAK, SFA, POX) i 4045% FotFli t46Din .. NNno RNAV 4t Not? %FID East tAS, Stp FINNZ RNAV tip% Fast/South (PNX, DFW,SR. ORD-PICYiN ptdAV 50% NDrthAVPSt SFO,OAX, SFA,PDX HAYtO I RNAV 40-45% Today and Planned SNA MUSEL7 SID; Proposed FINZZ SID MUSEL7 4 FINK March 2017 < 10%of Flights (est) A Non-RNAV becomes an RNAV 9/19/2017 6-18 STREL 3/4 4 PIGGN December 2016 45-50% of flights An RNAV stays an RNAV 9/19/2017 jai, h r AM*d .Tw» bnibTAi zr ar.m.+rexxa*.ae, I ,c - Twk —fir Flyby Fly -aver Comtesyn1BOBAM= 6-19 CHANL2 4 NOLO March 2017 40A5 % of Flights A Non-RNAV becomes an RNAV 9/19/2017 CHANL2 Conventional SID — Google Earth 6-20 • City's Comment Letter • TOING removed? • STREL waypoint - fly -over v. fly -by • More noise analysis needed • More detail needed • Test period of 180 days. • Residents commented, too: • 9-ANM-SoCalOAPMAfaa.gov by 10-8-2015 Our Concerns • NextGen desired by carriers and FAA, not communities. • Dispersion = the opposite of NextGen • A different narrowed path isn't likely • Every movement has consequences • Least offensive outcome = no NextGen A no-win situation 9/19/2017 Noflyday.org Options Downside • Disperse Opposite of NextGen • New Patb(s) New communities • STREL Path Balboa Island • Higher Altitude Santa Ana Heights 0 6-21 MUSEU Conventional SID—Google Earth PIGGN RNAV SID — Google Earth What are the Historic Tracks? 9/19/2017 6-22 9/19/2017 <OfiDUUKE tTip,S[Trnks-Yaerb IbiOpe� FAA 6-23 Federal Aviation Administration October 25, 2016 Via Email: Z)Kiff(a�newportbeachea.gov Dave Kiff City Manager Newport Beach City Hall 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Southern California Metroplex Project Dear Mr. Kiff, Thank you for reaching out to the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") on behalf of the City of Newport Beach ("the City") regarding the Southern California Metroplex Project ("SoCal Metroplex"). We also appreciate meeting with you, Aaron Harp and Thomas Edwards at FAA's Regional Office on October 19, 2016. The City's representatives clarified the City's main areas of concern and FAA had an opportunity to speak directly to those areas, describe the airspace procedures and explain the intent of the changes. We feel that the meeting was positive and accomplished each of our objectives. Background At the outset, the FAA acknowledges receipt during the public comment period of the City's September 4, 2015 comment letter and compact disc submitted by your counsel, Andrea Leisy, in connection with the SoCal Metroplex Draft Environmental Assessment ("Ex'). Due to administrative inadvertence, the City's comment letter was not included in the comments FAA considered in reaching its decision on the proposed action and was not included in the attachments to the FAA SoCal Metroplex Final EA. The FAA approved the implementation of SoCal Metroplex in its Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision on August 31, 2016 and has already taken steps towards implementation. Because of the oversight with the City's comment letter, you reached out to FAA. On September 23, 2016, FAA informed you that it was preparing responses to the comments, although the FAA had already made its decision and the administrative process is closed. FAA also suggested meeting in-person to discuss the City's concerns. On October 19, 2016, you, Mr. Harp and Mr. Edwards, met with many FAA staff, including the Air Traffic Organization Design and Implementation Team who designed the procedures, at the FAA Western -Pacific Regional Office. We discussed the City's main areas of concern. This letter summarizes our discussion and provides FAA's responses to your concerns. 6-24 3. ;i. ;ra�.yrylfYtr£'s' Fe dw al Aviolion AtimWv1fct1on Meeting on October 19, 2016 At the meeting in the FAA Regional Office, City was concerned mainly with the SoCal Metroplex Project departure procedures from John Wayne Airport ("SNA"), particularly PIGGN, HHERO, and FINNZ and requested clarification regarding the intent of the procedures, design considerations, and their effect on the 1985 Settlement Agreement. SNA Departure Procedures - In our discussion, the City expressed concern regarding the size of the area studied by the FAA in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for SNA departure procedures, specifically PIGGN, HHERO and FINNZ. As discussed, the precise area for those procedures is depicted for environmental analysis purposes as a flight corridor' in the EA and shown in Exhibit 3-7 and 3-8. While the flight corridor represents a relatively large area, the intent of the departure routes for PIGGN, HHERO and FINNZ is to mirror and improve upon the current STREL procedure by keeping aircraft in the middle of Newport Bay and crossing over Noise Monitor 7. To the extent the FAA would like to make adjustments to these procedures different than what is in the EA, the FAA would need to conduct additional safety, operational and environmental analyses. TOING Waypoint — The City was concerned about the removal of the TOING waypoint from departures from SNA. Some aircraft using existing departure procedures failed to fly over TOING and noise monitor 7 as their Flight Management System was unable to engage the waypoint so they skipped it. The RNAV procedure design for departures from. SNA removed the TOING waypoint to ensure aircraft fly closer to noise monitor and avoid the skipping that had previously occurred. Extensive analysis was conducted on the proposed action departure procedures which included the use of flight simulators with airline industry to ensure the procedure performed as intended, The analysis showed aircraft would have less drift and fly much closer to Noise Monitor 7. STREL — The City requests that the STREL off -shore waypoint be a fly -over waypoint and. is concerned that aircraft would turn to the east in advance of the STREL waypoint and thereby cause increased noise impacts to residential communities like Newport Coast and Corona del Mar. While the STREL waypoint will remain a flyby waypoint in the Proposed Action, it is FAA's intent that turns towards the east will not be made any differently than they are today, which is generally at or near the STREL offshore waypoint. Of course, aircraft may be turned to maintain safe separation or sequencing of aircraft as they are today. 1985 Settlement. Agreement — Although the FAA is not a party to the 1985 Settlement Agreement, the Metroplex procedures at SNA are not intended to affect any provision or existing 1 The noise analysis flyability lines served as the center of the '1 nautical mile and 0.3 nautical mile containment area for RNAV and RNPs respectively. The containment area is generally where dispersed tracks are contained., but air traffic may need to vector off of the procedure with a rejoin at a later point. For those identified cases, noise model tracks were developed to account for that type of dispersion. 6-25 ry sadministiCiN'lon noise abatement departure procedure contained in the 1985 .Settlement Agreement, as amended. When designing the proposed action procedures, the FAA considered existing noise abatement procedures (required or voluntary) and made an effort to design procedures that observed existing noise abatement procedures. 180 -day Test Period — As we discussed, the FAA will closely monitor the performance of the procedures and evaluate any deviations from the expected flight paths according to FAA Order 7100.41 following implementation in March and April 2017. To the extent that FAA's review and analysis of the procedures indicate adjustments may be necessary, the FAA looks forward to working with SNA, air carriers and representatives from various communities in this process. Please note that any adjustments to these procedures would likely require additional safety, operational and environmental analyses. City's Comment Letter on Draft EA The FAA will provide responses to the City's September 4, 2015 comment letter although the FAA has already made its decision regarding the SoCal Metroplex Project and the administrative process is closed. We would like to assure you that, despite administrative inadvertence, the concerns raised by the City in its comment letter were also raised by other commenters and considered by FAA in reaching its decision. FAA responded to these comments in the Appendix F of the Final EA. A separate letter providing a detailed response to the City's comments on the Draft EA will be provided to the City by November 11, 2016. Thank you for your interest in the SoCal Metroplex Project. Sincerely, r Glen A. Martin Regional Administrator 6-26 Attachment C Selected History on the STAYY Procedure 6-27 Mayor April 22, 2016 Keith D. Carry Mayor Pro Tem Rush, N. Hill, u Mr. David Soumi Council Members Acting Regional Administrator Leslie J. Daigle FAA Western -Pacific Region Nancy Gardner P.O. Box 92007 Michael F. Henn Los Angeles, CA 90009 Tony Petros Edward D. Selich RE: Development of an RNP Departure for John Wayne Airport (Orange County, CA) Dear Mr, Soumi: In response to the FAA's offer to the City of Newport Beach to review the proposed RAWLZ RNAV departure, the City and GE Aviation/Naverus have conducted an analysis of recently published criteria related to performance-based navigation (PBN) instrument procedure design, the technical issues related to design and implementation of PBN departure procedures, and the legal challenges surrounding operations at John Wayne Airport. The City believes that as a part of the FAA's NextGen plan, an opportunity exists to improve upon the long-standing issues related to noise mitigation at John Wayne Airport by modifying the proposed RAWLZ RNAV departure to take advantage of the recently published FAA Order 8260,58 PBN Instrument Procedure Design criteria. The City respectfully requests that the FAA consider the following: Develop the proposed RAWLZ RNAV departure using the RF leg type to design an RNP departure that follows the center of the Back Bay from the departure end of the runway to open water. The path should be designed to avoid the populated areas on both the east and west side of the bay. The city of Newport Beach, through community engagement, could provide appropriate detail to the procedure designers as to the desired location of the path. All elements of the modified departure should conform to the criteria used to design the current proposed RAWLZ departure with the following exceptions: o Waive the required departure leg types to allow for a series of RF legs beginning not later than 1.0 NM past the departure end of the runway and extending out towards the proximate location of the current STREL waypoint, • Construct the RF legs and obstacle evaluation area (OEA) in accordance with FAA Order 826058, Volume 6, Chapter 1..3.6 with waivers as necessary to allow for a combination of connected, opposite direction RF legs. City Hall 0 Post Office Box 1768 0 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 www.newportbeachca.gov e (949) 644-3004 6-28 Mr. David Sam! AprII22, 2013 Page 2 Ensure that the design path remains within the lateral bounds of the current departures being flown at JWA. 0 Publish. the procedure as an RNP -1 with the additional procedure note. "RF required." o Operators could be authorized to fly the procedure via OPSPEC C063. Air carriers currently flying RNAV departures at JWA should already have this authorization. The procedure should qualify as a Categorical Exclusion under FAA Order 1050.1 SEC 311. This could be substantiated during the design and review process through the use of historical radar data. The proposed modifications should not require a substantially higher level of coordination and review with airspace managers and stakeholders than the current proposed RAWLZ RNAV departure. The majority of air carriers flying RNAV departures at JWA are currently equipped with the enabling avionics to fly a departure procedure with RF legs. We look forward to your consideration of this input. We suggest having a discussion on how we could develop a project framework and establish the mechanism that the City should use to define and communicate the location of the desired flight path. Please do not hesitate to contact us at 949-644-3001 (please ask for City Manager Dave Kiff). As always, thank you for your continued concern for communities affected by flight paths. Sincerely, KEITH p. CURRY Mayor of Newport Beach cc: Members of the (Newport Beach City Council Members of the Newport Beach Aviation Committee US Congressman John Campbell US.Congressman Dana Rohrabacher Mr. John M.W. Moorlach, Orange County Supervisor Mr. Alan Murphy, John Wayne Airport Thomas Hatch, City Manager of Costa Mesa John Pietig, City Manager of Laguna Beach 6-29 U.S. Department Western -Pacific Region P.O. Box 92007 of Transportation Office of the Regional Administrator Las Angeles, CA 90009-2007 Federal Aviation Administration JUN 0 5 2013 The Honorable Keith D. Curry ..":'' Mayor of Newport Beachw> City Hall G `; P.O: Box 1768 `,r Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Mayor Curry: Thank you for your letter dated April 22, 2013, proposing development of a Required Navigation Performance (RNP) departure procedure for the John Wayne Airport, Orange County, CA. We carefully reviewed your request and the "John Wayne Airport Departure Feasibility Assessment prepared by Naverus, Inc, for the City of Newport Beach." We appreciate the potential benefits of the proposed RNP departure in mitigating noise. As identified in the assessment, there are a number of challenges involved in developing the proposed procedure. These challenges include, but are not limited to, the following: the proposed procedure does not meet current criteria for departure procedure design, the standards for charting do not yet exist, and the process for authorizing the use of an RNP departure is still evolving. These challenges need to be resolved before we can consider procedure development and implementation. We have discussed the proposal with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Headquarters Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Policy and Support Group. The FAA has developed a prototype RNP departure procedure for demonstration and evaluation at Hartsfield -Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL). The FAA plans to begin assessment of the ATL procedure in October, 2013. Following a period of operational assessment to confirm design standards and appropriate levels of safety, the FAA would be receptive to considering other suitable sites for RNP departure procedure development. We may be able to advise fiulher on this request sometime in mid-to-late 2014. 6-30 Thank you for this opportunity to answer your inquiry. If you need further help, please contact me or Mr. Dale Bouffiou, Deputy Regional Administrator, at (310) 725-3550. Sincerely, David C. Suomi Acting Regional Administrator 6-31 March 23, 2016 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3001 1 949 644-3020 FAX - - - - --- - - ------ - - - -- - - ----- ----ne-wportbeachca.gov - Robert Henry, Manager Southern California MetroPlex Western Service Center, FAA 1601 East Valley Road Renton, Washington 98057 Dear Mr. Henry: The City of Newport Beach is interested in discussing with you and/or a staff member you designate whether a Required Navigational Performance (RNP) departure pattern for certain specific departures from Orange County's John Wayne Airport (SNA) might make sense. As you will recall, in 2013 we discussed a possible departure pattern from SNA that would be an RNP and, as envisioned by some work done by GE/Naverus, contain up to two curves/turns as the departure leaves SNA but over the Upper Newport Bay. We are not experts in designing an RNP departure. But we are intrigued with the possibility that an RNP departure for planes that would otherwise use the proposed HAYLO and FINNZ NextGen departures could: • Be flyable safely given current or near-term technology. • More closely follow and indeed improve upon an "Ideal Path" out of JWA. • Lessen some noise to the residential areas adjacent to Upper Newport Bay; and • Result in slightly less impact to specific residential corridors on Balboa Island, where currently we anticipate that the PIGGN/HAYLO/FINNZ departures would all go over roughly the same part of the Island. We envision something similar to the attached schematic, which is generally the STREL 4 (in red) plotted alongside a possible RNP for HAYLO/FINNZ. At its meeting on February 9, 2016, the Newport Beach City Council authorized me to send this letter to you, and to request that you provide us with comments on whether a curved RNP departure pattern for some of the flights departing SNA (such as flights now using CHANNEL and MUSEL) could be implemented given safety and technology. 6-32 Letter to Robert Henry March 23, 2016 Page 2 Should you wish us to conduct a further analysis of this idea with GE/Naverus or another consultant as a part of this process, we can certainly consider that. If you believe that this concept is entirely infeasible and "unflyable" at this time given technology today, that information is helpful as well and we will be respectful of that assertion. Thank you for considering this request. I am happy to assist you or take additional suggestions from you or your staff in this regard. Sincerely, Gam, Dave Kiff City Manager City of Newport Beach 949-644-3001 dkiff@newportbeachca.gov cc: Members of the Newport Beach City Council The Honorable Michelle Steel, Supervisor, 2nd District The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, 48th Congressional District Mr. Barry Rondinella, Director of John Wayne Airport 6-33 Letter to Robert Henry March 23, 2016 Page 3 6-34 Attachment D Petition from iPetition.com 6-35 Petition TOO LOUD & TOO LOW: STOP JWA NOISE NOW! Page 1 of 7 TO tULOUD & TOO LOW: STOP JWA NOISE ..IV O'VV 1900..____ 154 Newporters Against JWA Noise () Q (683) (Comments) Six months ago, as part of its efforts to "enhance the safety and efficiency" of the nation's airspace, the FAA threw several thousand Newport Beach residents under the bus. Thanks to a new initiative - So Cal Metroplex, launched in March/April 2017 -John Wayne Airport departures are now allowed to begin turning left shortly after leaving the runway, putting them squarely ova c ols, daycare centers, shopping malls and churches adjacent to Upper Newport Bay. https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stop-jwa-noise-now 9/19/2017 6-36 Petition TOO LOUD & TOO LOW: STOP JWA NOISE NOW! Page 2 of 7 In its environmental assessment of Metroplex, the FAA stated the changes would cause "no significant impacts" to surrounding areas. However, as thousands of Newport Beach residents know all too well, the impacts have been horrendous, with debilitating increases in noise and jet fuel pollution, decreases in property values, and concurrent threats to our health, our safety, our environment and our peace of mind. The City of Newport Beach has challenged the FAA's "no significant impacts" finding, and has been negotiating with the FAA since 2013 to develop a departure path that would keep planes over the water, not our homes. Neither effort has produced concrete results and more and more departing planes are shortcutting over our neighborhoods rather than staying over the bay. Commercial airlines currently flying out of JWA include Alaska, American, Delta, Frontier, Southwest, United and Westjet; many no longer use the voluntary noise abatement measures that previously mitigated the roar of departing planes. However all of these airlines - without needing FAA approval - are free to re -implement these procedures and/or take off at higher altitudes if they choose to do so. We ask the FAA, the airlines, and our city and county officials to do the right thing and take whatever measures are necessary - separately or in tandem - to get the planes back over the water where they belong. Specifically: To the FAA: Admit that your "no significant impacts" finding is simply not true. Move the first left turn after takeoff to its previous location further down the bay and adjust departure routes so planes are over the water - not our homes - until reaching the coastline. To the airlines: Voluntarily implement previously successful noise abatement procedures for all planes departing John Wayne Airport. To the city/county: Stop telling us to "be patient" while you negotiate/mediate with the FAA and show us some concrete results of the work we are told is being done on our behalf. Newport Beach residents stand united in demanding that the FAA, the airlines and city/county officials acknowledge our concerns and take the immediate and concrete steps required to restore our peace of mind and quality of life. https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stop-jwa-noise-now 9/19/2017 6-37