The official DEIR comment submitted by the city of Laguna Niguel.
October 15, 1996
Mr. Paul Lanning
County of Orange
Environmental Management Agency
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, California 92702-4048
Subject: City of Laguna Niguel's Comments on the Marine Corps Air Station El Toro Community Reuse Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 563
Dear Mr. Lanning:
The City of Laguna Niguel and the 55,000 residents of the City of Laguna Niguel are directly impacted by the proposed reuse of MCAS El Toro. The proposed project (Reuse Alternative A) is a 38 million air passenger (MAP) commercial airport. The airport's primary arrival pattern would be over a substantial portion of the City of Laguna Niguel. Aircraft flying this arrival pattern will create a direct, substantial and negative noise impact on the residents of Laguna Niguel and they will have a direct, substantial and negative impact on the air quality of Laguna Niguel. Also, the residents of Laguna Niguel use the regional ground transportation systems in the vicinity of MCAS El Toro, and these will be significantly and adversely impacted by traffic generated by the proposed project. Because of those impacts, the proposed project will adversely effect the value of both residential and commercial property in Laguna Niguel. Therefore, the City of Laguna Niguel and its residents are extremely concerned about the reuse of MCAS El Toro.
The closure of MCAS El Toro has provided Orange County with a unique opportunity to reuse a substantial amount of land in a manner that will benefit all of the residents of the County of Orange. Unfortunately, the County's approach to preparing a Community Reuse Plan and the Draft EIR has given the residents of South County and Laguna Niguel the impression that the County has predetermined the adoption of Reuse Alternative A. This perception is supported by the County's environmental documentation which, on the one hand, consists of thousands of pages of technical analyses and studies with the public allowed only 60 days for review and comment, but on the other hand, ignores significant impacts on noise levels, air quality and traffic, including deferring the identification and analysis of mitigation measures until after project approval. Further, as will be discussed in more detail later in this letter, the Draft EIR fails to adequately identify and analyze all of the impacts, especially as they effect residents of Laguna Niguel; it fails to identify and analyze a reasonable range of project alternatives; and it fails to adequately identify measures to mitigate the impacts.
Instead of rushing the process, the county should have first conducted objective, detailed market feasibility studies to identify reuse options. The preparation of the "Preliminary Nonaviation Concepts Report" and the "Preliminary Aviation Market Assessment" was a poor attempt at determining the feasibility of the reuse alternatives. These documents were preliminary and provided insufficient justification for the development of the three reuse alternatives. Final and complete feasibility studies should have been prepared and circulated for public review and comment before the County selected reuse alternatives.
Additionally, the County should have requested conceptual approval of the aviation alternatives from the FAA and CalTrans, who are the Federal and State permitting agencies, before selecting reuse alternatives. This process would have ensured that feasible reuse alternatives were analyzed in the Draft EIR. If this process were followed, then the County would have had some idea as to what are feasible alternatives before spending the time, effort and expense on alternatives that are not feasible.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has stated that the deadline for the County to submit a Community Reuse Plan is late December, 1996. This deadline is based on the DOD's schedule for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for conveyance of the base. However, no penalties occur if this deadline is not met. DOD will not convey the property to another agency nor will it prepare its own reuse plan. The County, instead of attempting to meet this artificial deadline, should instead take the time to prepare the necessary studies to determine feasibility of the reuse alternatives and prepare the necessary environmental documentation to analyze the impacts of the reuse alternatives.
The reuse of MCAS El Toro is one of the most defining moments in Orange County's history and will affect the County for many years in the future. The risk of rushing the process is tremendous. The process should be approached methodically, and the County should do a full, complete and final feasibility study of the reuse alternatives, and after selecting feasible reuse alternatives, the County should prepare a full and complete EIR analyzing the impacts on the environment, alternative projects and mitigation measures for each alternative. Then that Draft EIR should be circulated for public review with adequate time allowed for the public review and comment, before the Board of Supervisors makes a decision on the reuse plan to be submitted to DOD.
The following is a summary of the major defects with the Draft EIR and steps for completing an objective reuse planning process:
1. The Tiered EIR approach is not proper. The 38 MAP airport project is a specific project, which requires preparation of a project-level EIR, including detailed identification, quantification, and analysis of impacts, identification and analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives, and preparation of mitigation measures.
2. The DEIR defers the identification and analysis of detailed Mitigation Measures. The DEIR defers consideration of mitigation measures until after project approval, however those measures should be identified and analyzed in order to determine whether or not the project should be approved.
3. The identification of project objectives is improper. The DEIR project objectives are so narrow that they preclude the consideration of reasonable reuse alternatives. As a result of the objectives identified in the Draft EIR, neither Reuse Alternative B, Reuse Alternative C, nor any other off-site alternatives can meet the project objectives.
4. The DEIR does not identify and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives. The one non-aviation alternative considered is not sufficiently developed to provide for reasonable consideration, and for the aviation plans, there is no meaningful consideration of off-site alternatives.
5. The Draft EIR incorrectly relies on 1994 military operations as the base line for measuring the impacts. The LRA has not complied with Public Resources Code 21093.8.1, which potentially allows for the use of military operations as the base line condition for measuring impacts.
6. The Draft EIR incorrectly incorporates an expansion of John Wayne Airport to 15 MAP as part of the base line condition. There is no justification for this assumption since an expansion of John Wayne Airport has not been analyzed for environmental impacts, and has not been approved, and is not reasonably foreseeable as required by CEQA.
7. The Draft EIR does not adequately justify the stated capacity of the proposed project. The proposed runway configuration, topographic constraints, and flight patterns will not accommodate 447,000 annual aircraft operations or 38 Million Annual Passengers (MAP).
8. The Draft EIR must reconcile the discrepancies between the economic analysis and the physical impact analysis. In order to achieve the economic benefits attributed to Alternative A, the physical design and operation of the airport would have to be significantly modified beyond what is currently proposed, resulting in greater and different physical impacts. Conversely, if the design and operations of Reuse Alternative A are not modified, then the economic benefits as stated in the Draft EIR are significantly overstated.
9. The Draft EIR does not sufficiently disclose potential noise impacts. The Draft EIR only measures noise impacts in terms of CNEL and does not thoroughly identify the actual impacts on residents. The Draft EIR must provide detailed information on single-event noise impacts particularly as they relate to sleep interruption and other health impacts.
10. The traffic analysis in the Draft EIR is insufficient. The Draft EIR does not justify how the circulation system will accommodate the trip generation from the proposed project. The traffic analysis did not include intersection and peak-hour analysis, which is required by all Regional, County, and City policies and procedures.
11. The Draft EIR traffic analysis is incorrectly based on the build-out of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and a direct connection to the Eastern Transportation Corridor. The Draft EIR does not provide justification, including feasibility and funding for the build-out of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and a direct connection to the Eastern Transportation Corridor.
12. The air-quality analysis in the Draft EIR does not meaningfully disclose local air-quality impacts. The Draft EIR concludes that there is no net increase in regional emissions and, therefore, no air-quality impacts. This conclusion ignores the fact that commercial jet aircraft operations will adversely impact the air quality of South Orange County.
To meet the CEQA requirements of full public disclosure and participation in decisions that will impact the environment, and to demonstrate to the residents of South Orange County that their concerns will be seriously considered the County must:
(1) Restructure the LRA to include South County representation;
(2) Obtain conceptual approval from the FAA regarding operational feasibility of the aviation alternatives;
(3) Revise the Draft EIR in order to provide full disclosure of all project-related impacts based on appropriate technical analysis using reasonable base lines and assumptions; and
(4) Recirculate a revised Draft EIR and provide adequate time for public review.
Following are detailed comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, it's assumptions, and conclusions. Many of these comments were previously included in the City's response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP). However, the DEIR did not adequately address the City's concerns. Therefore, the City's NOP comments are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth herein, and each comment contained should be considered as a separate comment from the City of Laguna Niguel. The City's NOP comments are included as Attachment A.
(Detailed comments not available)