Airport Noise and Safety Committee - August 24, 2006

Airport Noise and Safety Committee

Thursday, August 24, 2006 – 5:00 p.m.

Fullerton Council Chamber

303 W. Commonwealth Ave

Chair Robert Hynes called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Airport Manager Rod Propst reported that former member John Woosley’s vacancy had not been filled.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the May 2006 meeting were unanimously approved.

OLD BUSINESS

1. NOISE AND OPERATIONS REPORT/AIRPORT INCIDENTS

Airport Manager Rod Propst discussed Fullerton Airport’s air traffic operations [a take-off or a landing] for the quarter. Propst reported that for the last 12 consecutive months operations continued to decrease despite the usual increase during summer months. Propst attributed some of the decrease to hot weather.

Manager Propst and committee members discussed the six noise and safety complaints made to the airport during the last quarter. Propst pointed out that six were also reported for the same period last year, and that there were no complaints about helicopters. He also explained Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations/rules about altitudes required for small planes and helicopters while flying over urban and rural areas and when landing or taking off.

-Public Comments on Individual Complaints – None.

2. AIRPORT MONTHLY SAFETY INSPECTION

Manager Propst discussed monthly airport inspections and inspection scheduling. He reported that no inspections were conducted in May, June, or July, but that future inspections would be scheduled monthly. A discussion ensued. Member Ashok Patel suggested that a set schedule be prepared in advance. Propst agreed and said he would ask Airport Operations Lead Worker Leonard Jimenez to prepare one, and that Jimenez would first contact members to ask their schedule preferences.

Chair Robert Hynes and Manager Propst discussed what Hynes noted during his last inspection; an area of the Alpha (A) taxi-way appeared to be deteriorating. Propst explained that his immediate plan was to purchase a sweeper for the Airport to remove debris from deteriorating asphalt; his long-term plans were to repair and reconstruct taxi-ways.

3. FAPA REPORT

Nothing to report.

4. MANAGER’S AIRPORT UPDATE

Manager Propst spoke about the dispute over plans to reconstruct the KFI radio tower; the City of Fullerton was apposed to them, and the City of La Mirada was in support of them. Propst discussed the FAA’s airspace study; the Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) position; meetings of La Mirada’s Planning Commission that were planned to address the reconstruction issue; the Fullerton Airport Noise and Safety Committee’s long history of involvement with the radio tower issue, including their resolution imploring KFI to install high intensity strobe lights on the tower; the deaths that occurred from aircraft impacting the radio tower; the California Department of Transportation’s Aeronautics division’s concerns, and KFI’s responses to opposition – why they believed the tower was a necessary service to the community, and what their reconstruction plans were. A discussion ensued among the members and Manager Propst regarding the KFI radio tower, its range and its history. Propst spoke about the land uses surrounding the tower and the Airport, going back to the 1940’s.

Manager Propst next discussed hangar construction projects at the Airport: City hangars and the Anaheim Police department’s relocation project. Chair Robert Hynes asked who was responsible for maintaining the single-lane alley on the north side of the Airport; Propst explained because it was not a City alley nor was it airport property, maintenance remained an unsolved issue.

Manager Rod Propst reported that planning had been going well for Airport Day 2006. He reiterated the event was to showcase the Airport for the local constituents and there would be no plane rides. A discussion ensued among the members and Propst regarding the committee’s participation and about the committee’s charter. Propst also explained how noise and safety complaints were handled, and he spoke about the history of the committee, its functions, and that public attendance only increased on time, and it included pilots that had attended on behalf of the Airport after the Tri-Motor crash in 2004. He explained how attendance by unhappy residents had changed over the years, primarily because of efforts by Buena Park and Fullerton’s City staffs to address various issues. It was agreed that the committee would have a booth during the event to make committee members available to acquaint the public with the functions of the committee and to answer questions about noise and safety issues.

Manager Rod Propst next summarized how the FAA assessed funding for the control tower based on a benefit cost ratio. Propst reported that Fullerton’s rating for the fiscal year was in the acceptable range for FAA funding. He explained that while operations remained low, he did not believe Fullerton’s tower was in jeopardy; neither did he think the Airport would be required to contribute funding for the tower. Member Jeff Harris queried Manager Propst about the benefit cost ratio; whether similar airports were compared in the equation. Propst explained that many variables had to be factored into the formula; considerations for Fullerton were its geographical location, several thousand operations that were not counted – traffic watch, etc., and the emergency operations in and out of Fullerton. Propst concluded with his prediction that Fullerton’s operations count would increase when newly constructed hangars were occupied, and with the increased helicopter operations. Harris then mentioned his observations about controversies over the City of Oceanside’s airport. Propst responded with information about this issue; the Fullerton City Council historically valued Fullerton Airport, the Airport contributes to the City’s general fund, and that Fullerton’s Airport was not in a similar situation as Oceanside’s.

Member Ashok Patel queried Manager Propst about airport fees and the status of plans to remove non-airworthy aircraft. In response, Propst spoke about correspondence that had been sent to Airport customers explaining fee increases, hangar construction plans, and airworthiness requirements. Patel suggested that fees be charged according to fair market value and not below. Propst explained the only under-market fees charged were for wooden T hangars but that those hangars would be demolished and replaced by new hangars, which would be rented at the fair market value. Propst also explained the difficulties in comparing Fullerton Airport to another airport to determine fair market value. He spoke about the difference between fair market value and appraised value, and he said that Fullerton Airport’s fees per square foot were what they should be. Propst also talked about the increases and decreases of the Airport’s fund balance and his future projections for the next three to five years. Propst reported that most general aviation airports relied on general fund money from their Cities, but Fullerton Airport did not. He also explained the importance of not diverting Airport funds to the general fund, especially if doing so would not be consistent with FAA regulations. He used Los Angeles Airport (LAX) as an example. Member Jeff Harris interjected comments about the LAX situation.

Chair Robert Hynes and Manager Propst discussed the status of non-airworthy aircraft. Propst explained the process he had begun to determine which aircraft at Fullerton were not airworthy and what he intended to do about them; that the deadline to produce proof of airworthiness would be September 1, 2006. Hynes asked if having derelict aircraft on the field posed a safety hazard, to which Propst said it was not. Propst added that the increased demand for tiedown spaces made it necessary for all Fullerton based aircraft to be airworthy.

Manager Propst reported that the State of California conducted their annual airport inspection, as delegated by the FAA; there were no discrepancies except that the helicopter parking spaces would need to be repainted from white to yellow. Propst explained his intentions for complying with their request and the costs involved.

Manager Propst reported that the City of Fullerton had, that week, accepted a FAA grant for $150,000 for design plans to install distance remaining signs and to move a wind speed indicator, in accordance with the Master Plan. Propst also reported that he expected additional funding from the FAA to pay for avigation easements.

Manager Propst concluded his update and offered to answer questions.

Member Ashok Patel queried Manager Propst about a homeland security issue. In response, Propst explained passengers from private aircraft could not land at an air carrier airport and board a commercial flight without going through the airport’s security. Propst went on to say Fullerton was probably one of the most secure general aviation airports in the western United States. A brief discussion ensued regarding an incident at Fullerton involving importation of illegal aliens; aside from that, Propst reported, with regard to security, Fullerton was ahead of other Airports, even after the September 11^th terrorist attacks. Propst sited the gate access system, security cameras, and lighting. as the Airport’s most effective security measures

In response to Member Harris’s inquiry, Manager Propst explained that the 2004 Master Plan Update included purchasing avigation easements in Buena Park and Fullerton. Propst reiterated that he applied for grant money to be used to purchase those easements. He also reiterated that while the Airport was awarded an initial grant for $150,000, which would be applied to the first phase of the project (to include consultant fees to negotiate for those easements), he anticipated more grant money would be awarded by the FAA in the next fiscal year. A discussion ensued.

In response to Member Ashok Patel’s inquiry, Manager Propst elaborated on what the benefit cost ratio analysis meant to Fullerton Airport and what the potential jeopardy was for tower funding when operations fell below the requirement. Essentially, Propst reported, the Airport would have to pay a percent of the cost for operating the control tower. Propst concluded that he did not believe the Airport was at risk because of considerations other than the operations count, which included geographical location and operations not counted. Propst affirmed Patel’s statement that the financial risk was currently not significant. Propst pointed out, however, that the decrease in operations was a current trend typical of general aviation airports. Propst explained that owning and operating an aircraft had become expensive because of rising fuel costs and other aviation expenses; additionally, the pilot community was aging and younger pilots were not replacing them.

NEW BUSINESS – None

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC – None

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Robert Hynes adjourned the meeting at 6:07 p.m. until the next meeting scheduled for November 16, 2006 at 5:00 p.m.

Recorded by: //Jackie Rossetti//____________

Jackie Rossetti, Administrative Secretary