The official DEIR comment submitted by the city of Dana Point.
October 11, 1996
County of Orange
Environmental Management Agency
Attention: Mr. Paul Lanning
PO Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
Subject: Notice of Completion Comments for Marine Corp Air Station (MCAS) El Toro Community Reuse Plan, Draft EIR 563
Dear Mr. Lanning:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) noted above. It was a daunting task to review most of the information presented given its substantial bulk and time limitations. It is an important task, though, given the wide spread negative impact to a significant portion of Orange County by the aviation alternatives. The City feels that significant changes and additions are needed to the document before it can adequately document impacts and present feasible mitigations for any reuse alternative. The City anticipates that the County will fully address each issue raised in the accompanying comments, and in the cities noted in the next paragraph, as well as the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority. These answers include providing all necessary information, analysis, and as applicable, additional technical reports as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21,000 et. seq., pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5. Please transit the proposed response of the County of Orange to the enclosed address at least ten (10) days prior to the date that the County of Orange proposes to certify EIR 563.
Several south Orange County cities have also submitted comments regarding Draft EIR 563. These comments address issues indigenous to their communities as well as overall concerns to the region as a whole. The City of Dana Point considers these comments to be valid points that question the ability of the Draft EIR and Community Reuse Plan to adequately plan for the future of MCAS El Toro. Along with the issues raised in this letter, the City hereby incorporates by reference those comments which have been raised by the cities of Irvine, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, and the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority.
1. On page 3-1, the County of Orange as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) proposes to use the tiered EIR approach for the El Toro Reuse EIR. According to Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines, tiering shall be limited to situations where the project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning of the city or county in which the project would be located. Draft EIR 563 readily admits that none of the reuse alternatives is completely consistent with the current County's General Plan or Zoning Code. Therefore, according to State CEQA Guidelines, the use of a tiered EIR is inappropriate.
CEQA provides for an environmental document which is specially geared to federal military base reuse planning. The use of a Master Environmental Impact Report (Master EIR) as detailed in Section 21157 et al. of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) states that a Master EIR may be used for a plan proposed by a local agency for the reuse of a federal military base or reservation that has been closed or that is proposed for closure.
Since the current document does not meet the requirements as detailed by the CEQA Guidelines, the LRA should abandon the use of tiering and prepare a new Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Master EIR, which is the appropriate document. The LRA should then review the draft EIR and make the appropriate changes in order that it could function as a Master EIR.
2. One page 2-21, as part of Reuse Alternative A, John Wayne Airport (JWA) will be eliminated from providing commercial airline service and limited solely to general aviation. The NOP failed to disclose this crucial piece of information, and therefore made it impossible for responsible agencies to provide a meaningful response. How does this action conflict with master plan studies as prepared for the Study Area? The draft EIR provides no alternative use for the airport facilities in JWA, for which the County of Orange has paid hundreds of millions of dollars. The reasons proposed for the closure of commercial airline service at JWA are vague and unsubstantiated, and the analysis fails to recognize regional analysis, use of existing facilities, the economic impact, and the associated physical impacts caused by eliminating commercial airline service at JWA. Since the LRA failed to disclose this information at the NOP level, and the analysis fails to meet CEQA EIR Guidelines, any reference to eliminating commercial airline service at JWA should be removed from the Final EIR.
3. One page 2-27, regarding airspace consideration, the EIR states that the overall effect of airspace interactions on the aircraft operations capacities at JWA and the airport on the MCAS El Toro site are not known at this time. There is insufficient information in the EIR to afford decision makers the opportunity to make a reasonable choice of an aviation reuse alternative. None of the documentation in the report quantitively resolves the airspace conflicts, and simply defers these decisions until the Airport Master Plan. Since the decision makers are choosing between aviation and non-aviation alternatives, it is crucial that the feasibility of an airport alternative be clearly shown at this stage. Additional research and analysis is needed in this area, and specific direction from the FAA needs to be included. These departure and arrival procedures need to be reviewed by aviation groups and the pilots union in order to assess their safety and feasibility.
4. Regarding Figure 2-5 on page 2-28, during a South and Southeast flow (3.4%), a total of 98.2% of the arrivals will be on runway 16. Under Section 4.4, page 4-212, the text states that: "Approaches to Runways 25 or 16 are not available due to terrain". Explain why one part of the EIR indicates arrivals are possible on runway 16 while another section states that it is not available due to terrain.
5. No part of draft EIR 563 discusses the impacts that could be caused by objects affecting navigable airspace. Covered under Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAA) Section 77.21(c)(2) indicate that obstruction standards apply to a planned or proposed airport. Under Section 77.5, Part 77 applies to any object of natural growth, terrain, or permanent or temporary construction or alteration. Since the draft EIR proposes two separate aviation alternatives, additional information in this area is needed in order that decision makers can make an informed decision. Without this information, the EIR can be considered wholly inadequate and fails to address Part 77 of the FAA regulations.
6. On page 2-23, regarding residential uses, the EIR states that existing housing will be used as transitional housing for the homeless and affordable housing. Do the words "affordable housing" mean that some of the residential units will be used as permanent rental housing, or will all of the housing be transitional?
7. The draft EIR needs to include a section regarding the content and impact of Measure "A" regarding any non-aviation alternative. There is a basic inconsistency between language in the NOP and the draft EIR regarding the impact of Measure "A" on any non-aviation alternative. The NOP states that the "existing County of Orange General Plan designates the MCAS El Toro site as a future commercial airport, consistent with Measure "A" (page 45, NOP). On page 4-3 of the draft EIR, it states "the passage of Measure A...defines a commercial airport as the preferred reuse". On page 4-34, it states "The focus of the initiative (Measure A) was to allow a process to examine the possibility of establishing a civilian airport on the MCAS El Toro site after the Marine Corps vacates the property in mid-1999". Clearly there is an inconsistency between information provided in the NOP and information provided in the draft EIR.
At no place in the draft EIR is there a clear analysis of the impact of Measure A, but the general information seems to indicate that the LRA has an ability to reject an aviation alternative in favor of an environmentally superior non-aviation alternative. An entire section needs to be added to the draft EIR which details each of the new policies added to the County General Plan and its impact on the selection of a non-aviation alternative. Without this information, both the public and the decision makers have too little information to make an informed decision.
8. On page 4-14, the draft EIR states that areas within the City of Irvine will not be subject to Irvine's Planning and Zoning regulations when the land is conveyed to the LRA. The City assumes that the LRA will use Section 53090 et al. of the Government Code, which provides for this exemption. This section is applicable only as long as the land will remain under the ownership of the LRA and is utilized directly in furtherance of the LRA's purpose. If the land will ultimately be conveyed to private ownership, it is inappropriate to state that it is exempt from Irvine's General Plan and Zoning. The draft EIR needs to detail this distinction.
In order to be accurate the draft EIR needs to determine if this area will be retained by the LRA and used in furtherance of the LRA's purpose. Otherwise, the draft EIR needs to accurately detail that the area will be subject to the City of Irvine General Plan and Zoning, and what the anticipated environmental impacts will be on this land.
9. On page 4-14, it is stated that industrial uses that are adjacent to residential uses will be considered incompatible. The reason for this finding is impacts from noise, air pollution and traffic congestion. Given this finding, how can a proposed airport alternative that documents significant noise impacts and air quality impacts that are 146% greater than the non-aviation alternative be considered compatible?
10. On page 4-15, third paragraph, the Section on Public Health and Safety is 4.15 not 4.14.
11. On page 4-16, under AELUP and Other Aviation Related Restrictions, the EIR needs to specifically analyze impacts related to Part 77 of the FAA regulations. As noted earlier, objects creating a hazard are not limited to buildings, but also includes terrain. The draft EIR cannot defer this decision to a later stage, and the draft EIR would be inadequate without describing this potential impact. The public and decision makers need this information in order to understand potential impacts and to make an informed decision.
12. Also on page 4-16, refer to earlier comments regarding analysis needed regarding LRA's ability to use Section 53090 of the Government Code or other regulations that would exempt this from the Irvine General Plan or Zoning Code.
13. Since the EIR is proposing an airport alternative, a discussion is needed regarding jet airplanes and their character of sound and level of magnitude. A quantitative analysis is needed regarding the sound characteristics of Stage II aircraft versus Stage III aircraft. Empirically, what sound benefits will be achieved by this change?
14. As noted in the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans, 1993), the extent to which future technology can continue to reduce jet-engine noise is uncertain. Most of the noise improvements have been through eliminating older louder jet aircraft. If, due to loading or take-off considerations, a Stage III aircraft remains the same as older noisier aircraft, then the EIR's noise modeling is not accurate and the overall noise level will grow, not decrease.
15. In regard to sleep interference (pg. 4-169), the EIR fails to document the U.S. Air Force study (Finegold, 1992; referenced in FICON) concluded that approximately 20% of the population can be expected to be awakened by indoor Sound Exposure Levels (SEL) of 70 db. This percentage rises to nearly 50% at an SEL of 90db. When background noise levels are low, a single noise having a maximum level as little as 45db may cause people to awaken, particularly if they are not accustomed to such noise.
The airport as proposed will have a dramatic change from the existing sound parameters; while military jet aircraft are noisier, they seldom have evening operations and never have night operations. The dramatic shift in aircraft operations will create a new paradigm for the region, significantly altering the historic noise matrix. Decision-makers need a thorough and complete analysis of this shift in order to weigh the economic benefits of the airport versus the environmental harm caused by this changed noise matrix.
The section on annoyance needs to be expanded to include annoyance factors caused by aircraft operations at an airport. The current description is too general and contains no information on annoyance impacts caused by aircraft operations at an airport. One key factor is that the noise by a jet aircraft creates a feeling of fear or anxiety. Although people may not fear the aircraft noise, they may be apprehensive that the aircraft would crash on their property, and the noise creates this awareness of the aircraft's presence. This is particularly crucial since the proposed airport will be introducing night operations, and bring commercial jet aircraft to areas of the county which have never experienced the anticipated level of noise operations. It is reasonable to expect that these residences will experience significant impacts, but this potential is not discussed in the draft EIR.
16. On page 4-171, regarding Single Event Noise Exposure Levels (SENEL), the draft EIR is not entirely accurate that a SENEL value is typically about 10db higher than the highest noise level (L max). According to the Airport Land Use Handbook, for most aircraft noise events, SEL and SENEL are about 5 to 10db higher than L max; the shorter the noise event is, the closer the two numbers will be. The EIR should be amended to include this information.
17. In regard to Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards (pg. 4-174), the Schultz curve is based upon the findings of research on all types of transportation noise. In regard to the airport alternatives, the EIR must include discussion of studies related only to aircraft noise. This other research suggests that aircraft noise is considerably more annoying than highway noise. These studies in combination with local studies regarding the effect of aircraft noise at John Wayne Airport (JWA) clearly show that the predictable effects for aircraft noise can not be explained with the use of the Schultz curve.
18. Recent developments in the study of aircraft noise from the Federal Government support the research that airports require further noise mitigation, and that previously accepted standards are inadequate to address the unique noise problems created by aircraft noise. This draft EIR needs to map the 55 db Day-Night Noise Level (DNL)/Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) line since this is shown as an area of "moderate impact". Since measures to ensure compatibility will be the responsibility of state or local government in the "moderate impact" areas, the associated measures should be included as mitigation measures. The LRA needs to identify a funding source to aid residents in constructing additional acoustical insulation above the 55 CNEL line. Once the impact of the Noise Policy is known (which should be September 1996), the LRA should amend the EIR and circulate a supplement indicating the new policy and its environment affects on southern and central Orange County.
19. One aspect that is basically ignored in the draft EIR is the significant impact from aircraft noise on those areas of Orange County which have never experienced noise impacts as a result of aircraft operations at El Toro. Since the military jet aircraft make a quick left turn from departures on runway 34, all overflights over Tustin, Cowan Heights, and the City of Orange are new flights. These areas will receive the largest and noisiest aircraft (747-200) and the greatest number of night flights, since most cargo flights will use runway 34 for night departures. Residents in Cowan Heights can expect a SENEL change of 86.9db. Since this area can be characterized on a sound chart as a quiet suburban or quiet rural, the change in noise characteristics will be from an average background noise level of 30 to 40db to an SENEL of 86.9db. Even with sound attenuation from a structure, a home with its windows open can expect a SENEL of 71.9db. According to earlier comments from the Finegold study, over 20% of the population can be expected to be awakened by an indoor single level of 70db.
The EIR needs to also document studies which examine a similar impact. A study was done in reaction to flight track changes implemented by the FAA in the New York/New Jersey area. The adverse reaction from the affected areas was substantial, even though the resulted noise level changes were still below the acceptable DNL (CNEL) levels. The draft EIR needs to thoroughly examine this issue and propose mitigation measures. The best approach is to accept a non-aviation reuse plan and eliminate these significant impacts.
20. According to the draft EIR, the noise analysis for military operations was prepared by using NOISE MAP 6.4, a computer program that includes noise characteristics for both civilian and military aircraft. Explain how NOISE MAP could predict CNEL's for Tustin, Cowan Heights, and the City of Orange. These figures are 41.7, 38.8, and 37.9, respectively. Since the jet aircraft make a left turn after departure on runway 34, it seems inconceivable that the City of Orange would receive even a small CNEL of 37.9. Why are such small CNEL's figures used on Table 4-30, especially since other tables (4-31 and 4-40) remove noise figures below a certain threshold, apparently since that were deemed to be less than significant.
Since NOISE MAP includes both military and civilian aircraft, why was INM Version 5.01 used for civilian aircraft, and NOISE MAP used only for military aircraft? What is the difference between the two programs, and how can the EIR attempt to compare noise information with two separate programs? The EIR needs to elaborate on this.
It is the City's contention that the EIR should not compare 1994 jet aircraft operations with any proposed aviation alternative. Since the Marine Corp has formally decided that the base will be closed, it formally ceased to exist as a military airport. In other areas of the EIR, such as air quality, a positive impact is documented for the region since the military jet aircraft will be leaving. Yet, under noise impacts, the impacts from the jet aircraft remains as if it would continue indefinitely. Since the EIR recognizes a positive impact in air quality, then it should recognize the positive impact with the removal of noise impacts from military aircraft. The two airport alternatives should be compared to the existing noise environment at the time that they will be implemented. At that time, the impact from military jet aircraft will be eliminated.
21. On page 4-212, the draft EIR indicates that approaches to runways 25 or 16 are not available due to terrain. This conflicts with Figure 2-5 on page 2-28 and the description of airspace considerations on page 2-27. On those pages,the designated approach and departure for a south and southeast flow indicates that 98.2% of arrivals will be using runway 16. It would appear that the draft EIR inaccurately projects noise impacts since the anticipated arrivals and departures does not match the computer generated noise analysis.
The description of preferential runway system on page 4-214 is not clear. Do C-17 transports land at El Toro? If the do, which runway do they use for departure. Do any transports use runway number 7? If a C-130 is a short runway aircraft, why does it only use runway 34?
22. On page 4-214, describe how the operational forecasts were determined? Why were the given mix of aircraft chosen and assigned to certain number of flights. Many of the aircraft noted on Table 4-33 are not included on either Figure 4-53 or Figure 4-54. What are the noise characteristics for those aircraft that are not included on the two figures?
23. Table 4-34 should also include the number of proposed flights by aircraft category, not just the percentage. It is not possible to determine the number of flights by category with the information provided.
24. Table 4-33 indicated that 2 arrivals will be from military aircraft on runway 16. According to existing runway and flight track utilization, currently no military aircraft use runway 16 for arrivals. Why would the military change that policy in the future?
25. On page 4-216, it is irrelevant to mention helicopter operations from MCAS Tustin (H) occurring in the North Corridor. MCAS Tustin will be closing in 1997 and all helicopter operations will cease. Further, helicopter operations at Tustin (H) have no connection to the noise created by military operations at El Toro.
26. On page 4-221, regarding night operations, break down the 172 night operations by runway and type of aircraft. The noise characteristics of aircraft vary greatly, and there should be some understanding of the type of aircraft that will be arriving or departing during the nighttime hours.
27. On page 4-221, provide CNEL contours for the proposed airport alternatives using NOISE MAP 6.4. This will permit the general public to better understand the differences between the two computer modeling systems.
28. Regarding SENEL, on page 4-224, as noted earlier, the SENEL difference can be between 5db to 10db higher than the L max. Therefore the 85 SENEL can result in a 70db impact in a residence with its windows open. Studies have shown that at least 20% of the population will be awakened by these overflights. Other factors come into play. The existing nighttime noise environment in this area is probably in the range of 30-40db. These flights represent a new and significant source of noise in an otherwise quiet environment. The draft EIR indicates that approximately ten (10) 747-400 flights will occur each day. Each flight represents a distinctive event which further exacerbates the new noise intrusions. These new night flights represent a new and significant intrusion no only to this area, but all affected areas surrounding the airport. The only way that people will be able to talk or sleep is within their homes, with all windows shut.
29. Regarding Table 4-39 on page 4-228, some of the CNEL figures need further explanation. For example, the projected CNEL for T1, CH1 and O1 is 51.0, 54.6, and 56.8, respectively. Yet T1 is the closest to the airport and O1 is the farthest away. Further, O1 is outside the 85db SENEL for a 747-400 as shown on Figure 4-56. Explain how the CNEL could rise as the receptor is located further away from the airport, and the noisiest receptor (O1) is located outside of the 85db SENEL for a 747-400. Yet, the receptor that is closest to the airport and clearly in the middle of the 85db SENEL for a 747-400 (T1) has the lowest CNEL of the three by over 5.8db.
30. There are other discrepancies in this table which need further explanation. The receptor OC2 is along the same line AV3 and considerable closer to the landing strip at El Toro, yet the proposed CNEL (60.4db) for both receptors is identical. Even more unusual is receptor LN-1, which is far removed from receptor AV3, barely within the 85 SENEL for a 747-400 and along the same line as AV3. In spite of this it has a CNEL of 60.6, which is .2 higher than AV3. These and other apparent discrepancies bring into question the entire accuracy of Table 4-39. Instead of locating receptors at the extreme edge of the 60 CNEL, receptors should be located along the direct line of the jet aircraft for approaches and departures of jet aircraft in order to gain a more accurate estimate of noise impacts. This table needs to be thoroughly explained and documented to ensure that the information contained in it is accurate.
31. Regarding the aviation noise summary on page 4-224, it is inappropriate to compare the noise environment for 1994 military jet aircraft to the proposed airport alternatives since the military base will be closing and all military will cease long before the proposed reuse aviation alternative would be implemented. The military jet aircraft leaving creates a positive impact to the local environment in regard to noise, in the same way that removal of the military jet aircraft creates a positive air quality impact to the region. Proposed noise impacts should be compared to the noise environment at the time that the airport would be implemented.
If the LRA continues to make these comparisons, then the use of one computer modeling system should be used in order to create an "apples to apples" comparison. It is not clearly documented that NOISE MAP and INM are comparable and therefore any comparison would be invalid.
32. Regarding the mitigation measures related to noise, it is inappropriate to delay any meaningful discussion to a point where the development of a 38 MAP civilian airport is a certainty. At this stage of the process, the LRA can weigh the relative impact caused by the airport alternatives versus the non-aviation alternative and decide if a non-aviation alternative not only creates a positive economic impact, but a positive social and environmental impact. The noise mitigation measures contained in the draft EIR already predispose that a civilian airport will be built, and provide no meaningful mitigation in spite of the enormous impact to a significant portion of the entire County of Orange. It is inappropriate to make such an important decision that will affect thousands of people with so little mitigation.
33. The EIR also clearly documented that some existing and proposed residential units will be within the proposed 65 CNEL. This is a significant impact and the LRA should not use a Statement of Overriding Consideration on this impact. Since any alternative can be chosen for El Toro, creating or perpetuating impacts is inappropriate.
34. Further, there is little or no discussion of the residential units that will remain and be utilized as homeless or permanent low income housing. The draft EIR claims that these identical units are outside of the 65 CNEL, but they are so close to the 65 CNEL line that even a slight change in the noise matrix could easily place them into the noise impact zone. There should be mitigation measures to address this potential significant impact.
35. On page 4-287, the draft EIR states that the "air quality model assumes that aircraft always take off into the wind." "This, or course, is not true." Provide specific examples of existing airports which promote or generally permit aircraft to take off against the wind. The draft EIR's statement is so definitive that examples of what normally would be considered an unusable take-off procedure should be documented.
36. On page 4-290, the draft EIR eliminates the air quality impact for all of the new aircraft activity as a result of Reuse Alternative A, since these trips have been forecast as occurring somewhere in the basin in the future. On page 4-296, it states that the "total net change in commercial aircraft emissions for the basin would be zero." Do these new flights exist at this time? Regardless of future projections, as each of these flights is added to the basin, the new air pollution created by that flight will be added to the basin. To state that the change in air quality is zero ignores the existing environment and the added pollutants that will be created by these flights, whether or not they occur at El Toro or elsewhere in the basin.
37. The logic presented by this EIR regarding regional emissions can also be applied to Reuse Alternative C. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has projected significant job growth in a variety of areas through the year 2010. Tourism and entertainment is projected to nearly double, while professional services is projected to grow by 168%. These are all uses and jobs projected under Reuse Alternative C. In a similar vein to the draft EIR's contention regarding aviation forecasts (as detailed on page 4-290), these uses will occur elsewhere in the basin if they were not developed at El Toro. In summary, using the same logic that was used for aircraft emissions, the total net change in regional emissions for Reuse Alternatives C would be zero.
38. One of the stated reuse objectives noted on page S-4 is: Will the plan be sensitive to local environmental concerns and considerations. From a local air quality perspective, Reuse Alternative A produces 146% greater air pollution impacts than Reuse Alternative C. It is clear that Reuse Alternative A does not meet the reuse objective regarding the local environmental. Provide documentation that this reuse alternative does meet this objective.
39. Since the draft EIR compares existing military jet aircraft noise with proposed noise impacts under Reuse Alternative A and B, why does the draft EIR not compare the air quality impacts between the existing military air base and the proposed alternatives? If the local impacts were compared with the proposed Reuse Alternative A, the results would show that Reuse Alternative A produces 627% more air pollution at the local environment than the existing conditions.
40. On page 4-306. the draft EIR states that Reuse Alternative A will result in a net reduction in regional emissions based on the reduction in commuting distance for local area residents who travel to the airport on the El Toro MCAS site rather than other airports. After examining the information in the draft EIR in regard to this issue, it is impossible for a reviewer of this document to verify this statement.
In order to understand this statement as it relates to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), the reader is referred to Table 4-69. No clear explanation or quantitative information is given in the draft EIR, so the reader then refers to Appendix G, the air quality report. That report refers a description of VMT to Appendix F, the traffic report. That report contains a section on 2020 VMT, which provides very little information on the modeling and methodology that results in the statements made in the draft EIR.
In order to research the one statement on page 4-306, three reports were consulted, which results in no real gain in understanding. According to the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR should be prepared using plain English so as to be understandable to citizens and decision makers with a non-technical background. In order to quantify the statement on page 4-306 regarding reductions in commuting distance, the background information, assumptions, and formulas need to be included in the draft EIR. More information or a better explanation of this statement is needed in order to permit the general public and decision makers to determine if these statements are valid.
It is the City's contention that VMT will not be reduced through the implementation of an airport at El Toro. At a capacity of 38 MAP, this facility would be the second largest in the region, with only LAX providing more capacity. This facility will draw from a very large service area, while diminishing the feasibility of other facilities, such as March Air Force Base or expansion of Ontario or Long Beach. While travel miles from Orange County residents might be reduced, trips from outside of Orange County would more than compensate for any savings.
41. On page 4-323, as indicated earlier, if the same reasoning used for aircraft emissions is applied to Reuse Alternative C, future SCAG forecasts show that the proposed land uses in Alternative C will be constructed somewhere in the basin. If these uses are not constructed here due to the development of a commercial airport, they will be developed elsewhere in the basin. Therefore, there is no increase in regional emissions for Reuse Alternative C, and it stands as the environmental superior alternative from a local and regional perspective.
42. On page 4-331, the draft EIR states that there is a reduction of vehicular traffic related to airport accessibility for Reuse Alternative A. As shown earlier, there is no way to independently verify this statement, and the City does not agree with the LRA's reasoning. Further explanation is needed to adequately address this issue.
43. Since one of the objectives of the Reuse Plan is to address local environmental issues, the environmental superior alternative from a local perspective is Reuse Alternative C. The regional gains cannot be verified in the draft EIR, and the City questions their accuracy. Therefore, the most appropriate alternative from an air quality standpoint is Reuse Alternative C.
44. On page 4-406, the draft EIR states that "little is known about noise impacts on wildlife." It goes on to state that "it is not expected that there would be residual impacts that affect breeding." Explain how the draft EIR can state that it is unknown what the impact may be on the wildlife population, but then state that no impact is expected? What is that statement based upon?
45. Also on page 4-406, the draft EIR states that current populations of gnat catchers are currently subject to similar noise levels with the proposed Reuse Alternative A. This is not entirely correct. There will be significantly more flights than the existing condition, and they will occur around the clock, as opposed to mostly daytime flights. The draft EIR does not consider these new impacts in its analysis. Additional information is needed to address the new impacts from significantly more jet aircraft flights during all hours of the day, evening and night.
The discussion in the previous paragraph also applies to the draft EIR page 4-408, regarding impacts to the 998 acre habitat. The draft EIR does not address the increased frequency of flights or the hours of operation. Further discussion and data is needed on these issues.
46. On page 4-412, the amount of information in the draft EIR does not support the finding that Reuse Alternative A or B will not result in a significant adverse impact on biological resources. Further information is needed regarding frequency of flight and hours of operation.
47. On page 4-571, provide a figure which shows MCAS El Toro in relation to the Bowerman Landfill. Provide a similar example of an existing landfill which is in such close proximity to an existing similar commercial jet airport. It is the City's contention that there is no comparison between the environment of Upper Newport Bay and a landfill operation in regard to the potential of bird strikes. At a landfill, there is constant activity from earthmoving equipment, trucks, and vehicles. The birds are constantly disturbed by this activity, frequently moving around the food source area. In contrast, upper Newport Bay attempts to perpetuate a natural environment where the animal or bird population does not receive the constant disruptions experienced at the landfill. The only accurate way to make the finding that the potential for bird strikes is insignificant is to document existing similar situations in the United States which have been approved by the FAA. It is important to show no impact at this time since the FAA will require that finding prior to the approval of any commercial airport operation. As it stands now, there is insufficient information to make that finding of no significance.
48. On page 4-580-581, the City does not agree that all of the impacts related to public health and safety have been reduced to an insignificant level. Information related to bird strikes for Reuse Alternative A and B is insufficient to make the finding of insignificance.
49. Regarding socioeconomic impacts as shown in Section 4.17.1, the draft EIR documents that the current jobs/housing imbalance in Orange County will grow over the next twenty (20) years, with the creation of more jobs than housing to support those jobs. This conclusion is drawn without the significant impact caused by the reuse of MCAS El Toro. Any of the reuse alternatives will only further increase the impact. The draft EIR also clearly shows that there is insufficient opportunity to provide housing for this future airport.
50. On page 4-624, the idea of utilizing areas for residential that are currently incompatible for that use is not supported by the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. It states that "airport land use commissions should resist the temptation to permit these uses (residential)."
"The principal danger lies in the reasonable predictable prospect that airline airport noise contours may begin to expand again after the year 2000. As is the case with aviation airports, providing maximum protection for airline airports requires looking at potential noise exposure levels well beyond the end of this decade and even beyond the 20-year time frame. Another factor lending credence to use of the largest contours is the increased public awareness and reaction to noise. Compatibility criteria ten to twenty years from now may well set a DNL or CNEL of 60db as the upper limit of noise acceptable for residential land use."
Given the inherent impacts caused by a commercial airport, the only feasible opportunity to help mitigate jobs/housing balance is a non-aviation alternative. The thoughtful creation of a planned community that provides housing opportunities for a wide range of incomes and job opportunities is the only viable alternative to mitigate the jobs/housing imbalance.
As noted on page 4-628, Alternative C would be insufficient to fully address the increased demand for housing. But Alternative C (or some derivative thereof) is the only alternative that creates the opportunity to provide more housing.
51. On page 7-19 regarding potential cumulative impacts related to Reuse Alternative B, the draft EIR states that the increased noise contour size at JWA creates the potential to negatively impact biological resources in Newport Back Bay. Explain why this is a potential impact while Reuse Alternative A (as indicated on page 4-406) will not create any significant impacts to biological resources surrounding MCAS El Toro. This finding of potential impact is made even though JWA in the year 2020 will be significantly less intense than the proposed Alternative A.
52. In the City's response to the NOP, we raised a concern regarding consultation with the FAA and similar agencies/organizations (i.e. Pilots Union) that will either regulate or use the proposed commercial airport facility. While the LRA consulted with the FAA, they did not receive an endorsement or written authorization that Reuse Alternative A is feasible. Since the intent of the community reuse process is to identify a single community reuse plan among several potential alternatives, the information provided to decision makers must show that the reuse plan is feasible. The FAA's response does not support that finding, and the LRA does not include any information from pilots or aviation organizations regarding the feasibility of an aviation alternative.
53. Also in the NOP response from the City, the new San Bernardino International Airport was seen as a viable alternative, with the inclusion of a light rail system that could transport passengers and cargo to this facility. The draft EIR only mentioned March Air Force Base, and rejected this alternative as being too far removed from Orange County. Since San Bernardino is actively seeking carriers and aviation business, this alternative should not be ignored.
In conclusion, the draft EIR 563 is inadequate as written, and a great deal of information is lacking in order to be seriously considered for reuse as a commercial airport. The LRA can either amend the document to provide decision makers and the public with sufficient information to make an informed decision or choose a non-aviation alternative. Information contained with the draft EIR clearly shows that a non-aviation reuse plan is not only environmental superior, but can achieve the objectives of the reuse planning process. The City strongly encourages the LRA to support a non-aviation reuse plan.
Sincerely,
Karen Lloreda
Mayor