Loading...
1973/06/14City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES June 14, 1973, 10:00 A.M The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. PRE SENT: ABSENT: PRE SENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Thom and Dutton COUNCILMEN: Pebley CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order. AIRCRAFT - NOISE REDUCTION AND P~OPOSED STATE MASTER PLAN: Mr. A. L. McPike of Douglas Aircraft presented !a slide presentation illustrating the progress made on aircraft noise and emission control. NOISE: Mr. McPike noted "noise'~eantdiff~rent things to different people and the important thing was the magnitude of noise. He thereupon played a tape recording illustrating the following: 1. The difference of 1, 5, .10 and 15 decibels to the human ear. It was noted that 10 dB was a significant difference in the reduction of noise and'15 dB was a substantial reduction. Also noted was a reduction of 10 PNdB (perceived noise level) reduces noise to half of its initial level. 2. The next recording was a sound frequency scale played at the same sound pressure level, however, at different frequencies, illustrating that some of the higher frequencies were more annoying than some of the lower frequencies. 3. The next recording was the "Broadband" vs "Pure TOne Noise" and the effect of noise duration, one at one second vs eight seconds. 4. The next slide illustrated examples of perceived noise level rating from 120 PNdB in a room with a hard rock band to a soft whisper at 5 feet. Specificially concerning jet aircraft noise, Mr. McPike briefly des- cribed the workings of turbojet engine and the turbofan engine. By tape he illustrated the jet exhaust roar as opposed to the whine generated within the engine. He stated that the ability to reduce the two types of noise was not the same. He then explained the new "High-Bypass - Ratio Turbofan Engine" and the acoustic treatment reducing both the velocity and the roar. The next slide shown illustrated the noise levels at the approach path, take-off and the sideline, illustrating the reduction difference between a DC-10 and a DC-8. Next explained was the difference between the contour of noise created during landing and take-off operations by an older aircraft compared to the improved engine of a DC-10. A tape recording was then played to illustrate said differences between the DC-8 and the DC-10, the levels heard being the difference that would be heard if in the field. Mr. McPike noted the following noise goals for the new transport aircraft: 1. Meet all noise level requirements which are applicable to it. 2. Be as quiet as is practically possible. 3. Be compatible with the co~mLunities around the airports from which it will operate. He stated these ~oals applied to all aircraft on the drawing boards whether it be short take-off and landing type or long range, high-speed and even supersonic transports &nd cargo. 73-470 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1973, 10:00 A.M. Possible modifications to the current aircraft fleet were explained by revision to the turbomachinery noise and jet exhaust noise. Slides were shown illustrating a new front fan, plus turbomachinery whine suppression. He stated eventually the new turbofan engine will replace the turbojet engine as new inventory comes into use. As to smoke, a slide was shown comparing the old and new technology. On a B-52, one engine was replaced by a new CF-6 engine. The slide showed essentially no smoke emitting from the new type engine. The next slide shown was a scale illustrating the density of smoke with visibility threshold generally ranging 24 or 28. He stated the engine powering the DC-10 never exceeds a level of 10 and felt it was safe to say that this is a smokeless engine. In addition to smoke, Mr. McPike advised that earlier engines left the fuel that was lying in the various lines drain into a drain can while the aircraft was on the ground and when the aircraft was airborne the fuel was dumped overboard. The new modification is to recycle the fuel back into the engine. For existing aircraft, he showed a slide of an aircraft where one side did not have the new smoke burner can modification, illustrating the reduction in smoke emission on the side with the installed burner can modification. In summary, Mr. McPike stated they were satisfied that substantial progress has been made in making aircraft of the future more compatible with airport communities and environment, and with the progress they were making, he~ felt development need not be curtailed. PROPOSED STATE MASTER PLAN: Mr. Sideris of the California Department of Aeronautics, with the aid of slides, presented the approach taken and methodology developed in determining air passenger demands in developing an Aviation Master Plan for the entire State of California. He advised that when the project was undertaken, approxi- mately 3½ years ago, two other studies were commenced, the 10-County Study Southern California Regional Aviation Systems Study (SCAG) and the 9-County ABAG Study in the Bay Area, leaving the other 39 counties by themselves, and for that reason the State decided to do an overall plan. He explained that there were basically three users; general aviation, commercial and military. However, the study was geared primarily to the general aviation and c~mL~ercial. He noted the difference between air transportation and ground transporta- tion in that by air you can cover from 100 to 600 miles in an hour, and this could mean covering a good portion of the State in an hour's time. weather. sidered. Considered in the State Aviation Plan was ground transportation and It being, in fact, a "Transportation Plan", various aspects were con- (Listed below are a few factors mentioned.) The trip maker's view, such as how he gets to and from the airport. The mode of travel between airports. The destination and choice of airports. Mr. Sideris reported an on-board survey of aircraft users was conducted in October 1970 in 32 airports simultaneously for three days, involving 90,000 questionnaires. It was found that 70 percent of air travel in California either ends or begins outside the State of California, the remaining 30 percent being totally within the State; the start and end of the trip 20 percent of the 30 per- cent being within Southern California and the Bay Area. Other factors learned from the study were: a. the median income, $17,600. bo 78 percent drive only thirty minutes to get to the airport. c. the median m ge, 40. d. service areas were delineated. e. percentage of transfers at various airports noted. 73-471 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1973, 10:00 A.M. He reported that data was developed on the basis of a count~ and within the county on the basis of forecasted urbanized and non-urbanized areas. Slides illustrated those projections to the year 1995. Orange County projected to be a totally urbanized area by 1995. He further explained the method used and dataand physical character- istics considered in developing the projected demands. Considered also was whether the demands were for short haul, medium haul, long haul or international, plus flight frequency. Also considered was the average accessability for both zones involving the trip and the distance in miles between zones. After considering all factors and determining the demand, he stated the number of flights needed can be established and the level of service can be pinpointed wherein some services may require redirection to different air- ports. He reported this particular concept is projected to be expanded nationally at the Federal level. Mr. Sideris noted that Orange County Airport is projected to be one of the largest airports in the State at 28.6 million passengers which is larger than Los Angeles International today. Also projected is Burbank and Orange County with both areas which are, or will be, surrounded by population on all sides by 1995. He stated they took the regional proposals (SCAG and ABAG~ updated the forecasts to 1995 which results in a drop from 243.4 million passengers to 211 million. The change being the level of service and capacity of the system. He stated this projection included Palmdale at 13.1 million, Ontario at 20.5 million, Santa Ana at 3.6 million and Burbank at 3.8 million. Ail this, he stated, shows that the availability of the system itself depreciates the activity that can be anticipated at a particular airport and the effect of building or not building an airport in one area does affect airports in other areas. He reported Orange County was the hardest hit within the State. Under the unconstraint element, it could be expected to produce some 23 million passengers in and out of the County per year. Under the system produced by the regional studies, the constraints in the San Francisco area, as well as the constraints in the Bay Area, that total would drop to approximately 15.2 million. As a result, he reported the areas having the largest loss was examined to determine if a site was available. The best solution would be if Santa Ana could handle the traffic with no constraints. This not being possible, a site in northeast Orange County was selected, near the Riverside-San Bernardino area and postulated a new airport in addition to a new airport in the Bay Area; this projected an increase in air traffic up to 222 million. He reported on the travel between Southern California and the Bay Area and stated in 1970, approximately 5.8 million air trips and 5.7 million ground trips were made, and with three new airports the future projection indi- cates in 1995, 73 percent of the people traveling between these two areas will travel by air, with 27 percent being ground transportation. In 1995, traffic between Orange County and the San Francisco Bay Area is projected to be 83 percent of the total trips by air. As of 1970, the average person in Orange County, traveling on all types of trips, travel 32.3 miles to get to the airport of their choice and in turn, there was generated 2.3 million passengers in and out of the County. In 1995, considering "Alternate A" (Unconstraint), Orange County would drop to 16.4 miles which is shorter than thatprojected in either the State or regional studies. If another facility is built in the area, an esti- mated 60 million miles less for access to an airport could be expected. If a facility is located in northeast Orange County in 1995, it can be expected to be handling 19 million people, serving 6 million from Orange County, 10 million from southeast Los Angeles, one million from San Bernardino, ?3-472 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1973~ 10:00 A.M. 14 million from Riverside and nearly 3/4 million from San Diego County. He stated that these figures are based on northeast Orange County being a full-range, short-haul airport (600 miles), handling 124 million passengers and medium-haul, 5.2 million, long-haul, 1.8 million, or a total of 194 million passengers in and out of the facility. It is projected that it would not be in competition with Los Angeles International on long-haul or international flights. Mr. Sideris reported the incremental forecast for northeast Orange County airport as follows: 1985--not quite on line. 1990--104 million people going through the facility. 1995--19.4 million passengers in and out. 2000--22 million passengers in and out. As a point of reference, he advised that today Los Angeles International handles approximately 15 million passengers in and out of the facility. He further reported 254,000 operations were projected including approxi- mately 10,000 cargo flights. By the year 2000, the average flight in and out of northeast Orange County would be handling 108 passengers. The Mayor called for questions; there being none, thanked the two gentlemen for their presentations and explained to those present that the presenta- tions were requested for information relative to future transportation needs in Orange County, particularly in the City of Anaheim. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Sneegas moved to adjourn. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 11:25 A.M. (Note: Both presentations made with the aid of slides and the Council Chambers darkened. The above notes were taken from the tape of the meeting.) Signed ~x~ ~ ~~ City Clerk City Hall, Anaheim? California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 19~' 1973~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson', Pebley, Thom and Sneegas ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton PRESENT: CITY M~AIqAGER: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Alona.M. Farrens CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER: Ken Clements ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts Mayor Pro Tem Sneegas called the meeting to order. INVOCATION: Reverend Harley Murray of the Western Avenue Southern Baptist Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Mark A. Stephenson led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.