The official DEIR comment submitted by the city of Mission Viejo.
October 14, 1996
County of Orange
Environmental Management Agency
Environmental and Project Planning Division
Attention: Paul Lanning
300 North Flower Street, Room 321
Santa Ana, CA 92701
SUBJECT: CITY OF MISSION VIEJO COMMENTS - MARINE CORPS AIR STATION EL TORO COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN (PLAN) AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) NO. 563
Dear Mr. Lanning,
On behalf of the City of Mission Viejo, please find City of Mission Viejo Comments, Letter from Amanda F. Susskind, Attorney at Law, dated October 7, 1996, Minutes of the Mission Viejo City Council meeting dated September 17, 1996 and letter from D. Michael Karn, Commercial Airline Pilot and Mission Viejo resident, dated September 30, 1996 all of which are presented as the City of Mission Viejo s comments on the County of Orange s Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro Community Reuse Plan (Plan) and Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 563 (DEIR).
Given the scope and complexity of the Plan and DEIR and limited review time, a collaborative analysis was undertaken by the Cities of Irvine, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel and Dana Point, and the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority.
The City of Mission Viejo hereby incorporates by reference all of the comments submitted on the Plan and DEIR, by the Cities of Irvine, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel and Dana Point and the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority.
The City of Mission Viejo concludes that the DEIR fails to comply with Government Code Section 65089(b)(4) governing local government implementation of the statewide Congestion Management Program (CMP). As detailed in the attached transportation-related comments on the DEIR, the City finds that the Traffic Analysis in the Plan is deficient in adequately providing a level of analysis consistent with Orange County CMP guidelines - an analysis that is capable of assessing the impacts of the proposed project upon the state highway and principal arterial system. This deficiency prevents reviewing agencies from understanding the location and degree to which the proposed Plan alternatives will impact existing and planned circulation systems. This deficiency further prevents reviewing agencies from having an adequate base of information from which to determine if CMP level of service standards on streets and intersections under their jurisdiction will be exceeded as a result of the trips generated by the proposed project. This deficiency also prevents the Responsible Agency from identifying feasible mitigation strategies that are capable of reducing the as-yet unidentified circulation impacts.
The DEIR must be revised to correct these deficiencies, and recirculated to reviewing agencies, prior to any action on the Plan alternatives or on the DEIR. In the event that the Responsible Agency elects to certify the DEIR or approve the Plan without correcting the deficiencies identified by the City of Mission Viejo, the Final EIR (FEIR) cannot serve as environmental clearance for subsequent levels of entitlement on base property, including interim civilian uses. No interim or final use on the base property can be approved by the Responsible Agency until a revised traffic analysis has been prepared that addresses the identified deficiencies, and until said revised traffic analysis is distributed to reviewing agencies for their review and comment.
In any event, the County s Response to Comments must fully address each issue raised in the accompanying comments, and in the comments submitted by the Cities of Irvine, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel and Dana Point and the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority, by providing the necessary information, analysis and as applicable, additional technical reports, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5. The County of Orange is required to respond to the attached comments of the City of Mission Viejo at least 10 days prior to the date that the County of Orange proposes to certify EIR 563.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MISSION VIEJO
Daniel P. Joseph
City Manager
Attachments:
1. City of Mission Viejo Comments - MCAS El Toro Community Reuse Plan and
Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 563.
2. Letter from Amanda F. Susskind, Attorney at Law, dated October 7, 1996.
3. Minutes of the Mission Viejo City Council Meeting, September 17, 1996.
4. Letter from D. Michael Karn, Commercial Airline Pilot and Mission Viejo
resident, dated September 30, 1996.
cc:
City Council
Assistant City Manager
Director of Community Development
City Attorney
City Managers Association
City of Dana Point
City of Irvine
City of Lake Forest
City of Laguna Hills
City of Laguna Niguel
TRANSPORTATION
The City of Mission Viejo has had an opportunity to review the transportation
and circulation components of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
for the MCAS El Toro Reuse Plan. Streets and intersections in the jurisdictional
boundaries of the City of Mission Viejo are located within the analyzed
traffic study area of the Reuse Plan Draft EIR. Recognizing that the City
of Mission Viejo is responsible for insuring that the Master Plan of Arterial
Highways system within its jurisdiction maintains level of service requirements
for adopted Congestion Management and Measure M Growth Management programs,
the City seeks to understand the degree to which the proposed reuse alternatives
will impact this roadway system and associated intersections.
As such, the City of Mission Viejo has reviewed the Draft EIR in an effort to responsibly inform its policy makers of the degree to which the conversion of the existing military base to a commercial passenger and cargo airport, will impact existing and planned circulation improvements. When contrasting the traffic generation of the existing military base--at 31,000 average daily trips--with the proposed traffic generation of the commercial airport project--at more than 300,000 average daily trips--the City seeks environmental analysis which identifies the location, degree, roadway improvement mitigation and funding commitment, of transportation deficiencies resulting from the proposed project. Based upon its review, the City finds that the traffic analysis in the Draft EIR does not include a level of detail in its analysis that is capable of disclosing the location of such environmental impacts, in addition to the specific improvements needed to mitigate the identified deficiencies.
The City of Mission Viejo, therefore, respectfully requests that the Draft EIR to the MCAS El Toro Reuse Plan be revised and recirculated, incorporating the revisions requested in the comments below, to allow for constructive and meaningful disclosure of the transportation impacts resulting from the proposed project.
1. Traffic Study Methodology:
Consistency with Congestion Management Program Requirements:
Section 65089(b)4 of the California Government Code requires that land use decisions be assessed for their impact upon regional transportation systems, including an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating those impacts, in conjunction with an adopted Congestion Management Program (CMP).
The Orange County CMP Preparation Manual further specifies the types of development applications governed by such an analysis, and the methodology by which the traffic analysis is to be conducted to assess a land use proposal's impact on the circulation system.
The Draft EIR traffic analysis for the MCAS El Toro Community Reuse Plan does not comply with several of these requirements, and must be revised and recirculated to include the appropriate analyses as required by the Orange County Congestion Management Program. These deficiencies are detailed in Comments A, B, and C below:
A. ICU Methodology for AM/PM Traffic Level of Service:
A CMP Traffic Analysis is required to identify the extent to which, and location where, trips generated by the proposed project cause CMP Highway System intersections to exceed their level of service standards. The Orange County CMP Preparation Manual: Traffic Level of Service Standards Chapter, identifies a standard, countywide methodology to calculate level of service, and to ensure compatibility of data among all jurisdictions. This standard methodology is the use of the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for both morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak periods. The ICU methodology is also a requirement of the County of Orange Growth Management Plan Transportation Implementation Manual.
The Draft EIR for the MCAS El Toro Community Reuse Plan does not use an ICU methodology in its traffic analysis, as required by the CMP and Measure M Growth Management Programs, and as specified in the County of Orange Growth Management Plan Transportation Implementation Manual. By failing to include this analysis, decision makers and affected local jurisdictions have:
a) no information by which to assess the location, and the physical impact, that the Reuse Plan and its alternatives will have upon the existing circulation system;
b) no quantification by which to assess the degree to which the existing and planned circulation system must increase in capacity, to mitigate the circulation impacts caused by the project;
c) no identification of the specific circulation improvements that must be implemented to mitigate project impacts;
d) no assessment of the feasibility of the identified mitigation measures to be implemented;
e) no quantification of the degree to which the project contributes to the additional circulation improvements;
f) no identification of the specific improvements that the project sponsor is required to implement to mitigate identified impacts;
g) no identification of the fair-share contribution that the lead agency must incur to fund identified transportation improvements.
Recommended Action:
The Draft EIR should be revised and recirculated to include an ICU analysis, and through the conduct of this analysis, address categories "a" through "g" above. A standard response to comments typical of a CEQA action is not sufficient, since the affected agencies need adequate information in the Draft EIR to make responsible comments. Such information includes categories "a" through "g", including proposed circulation-related mitigation measures which may, in fact, impact agencies in the study area.
B. Degree of Project Impact to the Circulation System:
The traffic impact analysis requirements for Congestion Management and Measure M Growth Management Programs identify a significant impact as any impact where the traffic volume results in a 1% increase in the volume/capacity ratio of the sum of all critical movements." The MCAS El Toro Reuse traffic study should be consistent with this requirement and use this threshold in its level of service and mitigation analyses. The study boundaries should be adjusted accordingly to include all areas where a 1% impact is found. The above described ICU analysis and proposed mitigation should be included for all of these locations.
The Draft EIR traffic study states that "For arterial roadways that were found to be significantly impacted under a given reuse plan, the level of significance of the project impact was determined based on both the amount of traffic which the project adds, and the degree to which the facility is caused to exceed its capacity. Impacts were accordingly separated into three levels of significance: major, moderate and minor" (pages 6 and 7).
At a minimum, the Draft EIR requires more discussion which justifies the three levels of differentiation summarized in Table 5-1 of the traffic study, with a specific clarification of how this relates to the CMP and GMP requirements for the 1% contributing traffic impacts. The numerical distinctions, in absence of clearer narrative discussion justifying the distinctions, seem to portray an arbitrary assignment of terms.
Further, the three levels of impact have no correlation to specific locations where such impacts are projected to occur, nor any associated mitigation that is determined feasible to mitigate the circulation impact. Thus, the City of Mission Viejo, which has MPAH and CMPHS roadway segments and intersections in the study area, has no environmental information which discloses how the proposed project will impact its existing and planned circulation network or in what manner it will be mitigated by the County of Orange.
Recommended Action:
Revise the Draft EIR traffic study to: identify those locations where a 1% increase will occur, and identify the critical movements per the ICU methodology as describe above in A; adjust the traffic study area boundaries to include the additional roadway and intersection segments identified through the 1% increase methodology; and identify the proposed mitigation and fair-share analysis for all impacted roadway and intersection segments. Recirculate the Draft EIR to interested and affected agencies.
C. Analysis of Project Impacts upon the Orange County Freeway System:
The adopted Orange County CMP includes a specific circulation network that is to be analyzed for potential impact by land use decisions. This system--known as the CMP Highway System (CMPHS)--includes both the freeway system and the Orange County Super Street and State Highway elements. As noted in Comment 1, local jurisdictions have no information to assess the degree to which the proposed project impacts the arterial roadway system.
In addition to the arterial roadway system, the traffic study area for the MCAS El Toro Community Reuse Plan includes five freeways/corridors within its boundaries:
the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR55)
the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5)
the San Diego Freeway (I-405)
the Laguna Freeway (SR133)
the Foothill Transportation Corridor (SR241)
the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR231)
It also references the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR73) as an assumed facility; however SR73 is currently outside of the study area boundaries. One impact analysis that might be needed on this corridor is whether or not the discontinued or changed use of the John Wayne Airport would affect revenues on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, if the planned development of the new airport is by Year 2020.
The traffic analysis for the MCAS El Toro Community Reuse Plan does not quantify the transportation impacts that the Reuse Plan will have upon freeway on-ramps and off-ramps in the project study area. Several freeway interchanges in the study area have been established as adopted CMP sites for biennial level of service reporting. They include:
CMP Intersection 36: SR55 ramps/Irvine Blvd. (northbound and southbound ramps)
CMP Intersection 51: SR55 ramps/Edinger/Auto Mall (northbound and southbound ramps)
CMP Intersection 50: I-405 ramps/Jamboree Road (northbound and southbound ramps)
CMP Intersection 55: I-405 ramps/Irvine Center Drive (northbound and southbound ramps)
CMP Intersection 57: I-5 ramps /Avenida de Carlota/Bridger/El Toro Road (northbound and southbound ramps)
With the previously noted 1% contributing factor and potential expanded study area boundaries, there may be additional CMP intersections in the study area, such as CMP Intersections 61 North and 61 South: the I-5 ramps/Crown Valley Parkway CMP intersections located in the City of Mission Viejo and the City of Laguna Niguel.
Recommended Action:
The Draft EIR should be revised and recirculated to include an ICU level of service assessment on freeway ramps to arterial roadways which will be impacted by the Reuse Plan. The Draft EIR should discuss, in particular, the impacts and mitigation needed upon the ramps identified above--which are adopted CMP sites for level of service reporting--in addition to any other intersections that might be added in the traffic study for analysis, as a result of the incorporation of the 1% increase methodology for impacted intersections.
2. Circulation Improvements Assumed in the Baseline Analysis:
Table 2-2 of the Draft EIR traffic analysis summarizes the long-range circulation improvements which were assumed in the Year 2020 long-range transportation analysis, with and without the Reuse Plan alternatives.
In reviewing this Table, one of the six freeway/transportation corridor improvements is non-committed, and 55 of the 90 arterial improvements are non-committed. The reliance upon assuming, in the base forecast analysis, the implementation of 56 improvements which have no level of commitment, is questionable. Given the degree to which the assumed improvements are non-committed, the traffic analysis should establish, as a base analysis, only those transportation improvements for which a commitment has been established through an approved fee program or development project mitigation measure/condition of approval.
This requirement is further warranted when reviewing the transportation-related infrastructure costs associated with the Reuse alternatives, and the taxpayer responsibility of expenses associated with the non-aviation related transportation infrastructure requirements.
As summarized from the MCAS El Toro Reuse Plan, total roadway costs for the Reuse Alternatives range from $166 million for the proposed project, to $130 to $144 million for Alternatives B and C, respectively. The Reuse Plan also states that "development of non-aviation infrastructure is assumed to be at County expense."
The non-aviation related transportation infrastructure costs range from $93 million for the proposed project, to $103 million and $144 million for Alternatives B and C, respectively. The report lacks any discussion of the feasibility of insuring that this degree of funding is established and programmed to implement transportation improvements deemed necessary for the alternatives, in addition to the funding needed for the 56 non-committed transportation improvements identified in the traffic study.
Recommended Action:
Only those circulation improvements with committed, 100% funding should be assumed in the base case traffic analysis. The traffic analysis needs to be revised to eliminate from the "base case" analysis, any improvement which has no committed funding source, no adopted fee program for implementation, or no requirement for exaction from a developer or other entity, must be eliminated as a base assumption in the traffic analysis. This insures a true "worse-case" analysis of the proposed transportation impacts, since there is no assurance that the non-committed improvements will be implemented.
The traffic analysis should also be revised to incorporate the previously referenced ICU calculations, identify those intersections which exceed CMP and Measure M levels of service standards, and make the required CMP/GMP findings with proposed mitigation measures. A fair-share contribution analysis also needs to be identified for identified improvements.
3. Use of a Tiered EIR:
The Reuse Plan identifies that the MCAS El Toro Community Reuse Draft EIR has been prepared as a first tier of environmental documentation for the Community Reuse Plan. The Plan states that tiering is a process by which agencies can adopt programs, plans, policies or ordinances, with the EIRs focusing on the big picture,'; a streamlined environmental review is then used for later individual projects that are consistent with the original programs, plans, policies or ordinances.
The document further states that the mitigation measures are general and broad in nature to correspond to the general level of the Community Reuse Plan itself, and that as more detailed environmental review is performed, subsequent, more specific mitigation measures can be identified and considered.
Comments 1 and 2 above, identify the City of Mission Viejo's concern with the deficiencies in the traffic study in analyzing and quantifying circulation impacts as required by the Congestion Management Program and the Measure M Growth Management Program. The Reuse Plan documents state that the policy nature of the Community Reuse Plan allows for such a broader analysis, and that subsequent environmental analyses will be conducted with the filing of an airport master plan.
The City of Mission Viejo finds this approach to be inconsistent with other general plan-level projects administered by the County of Orange, such as the Antonio Parkway Roadway and Land Use Plan. The following is a summary of the scope of this County project and the provisions made by the County of Orange for said project:
The County of Orange, as the lead agency, filed a Draft EIR for the Antonio Parkway Roadway Alignment and Land Use Plan.
In conjunction with Antonio Parkway EIR, the land use component is also described at a General Plan/zoning level of detail, with the project comprised of two major components: a Transportation Element Amendment and a Land Use Amendment/Zone Change.
The study area for the Antonio Parkway , as with the Reuse Plan, involves a proposal that has a major impact on regional redistribution of traffic.
The Antonio Parkway EIR, as with the Reuse Plan, encompasses several thousand of acres of land in unincorporated Orange County, with broad brush land uses identified, and corresponding acreage attributed to, the proposed land use designations.
Also, the Antonio Parkway EIR, as with the Reuse Plan, proposes that additional environmental documentation shall be required for address the potential impacts of a more specific land use development plan.
The major difference between the Antonio Parkway Draft EIR and the MCAS El Toro Community Reuse Plan Draft EIR is in the depth of analysis of the traffic study. The City of Mission Viejo requests that the MCAS El Toro Reuse Plan Draft EIR conduct a traffic analysis similar in scope and methodology to the Antonio Parkway Draft EIR. In reviewing the latter, the City finds that the traffic analysis addresses and complies with the issues raised in Comment 1: Sections A, B, and C above, in that:
It is consistent with CMP and Measure M requirements, with a level of service analysis conducted for both Average Daily Traffic and peak hour intersection performance.
It includes ICU analyses of freeway and corridor ramp intersections with arterial highways within the study area: specifically, Interstate 5 in the existing condition and Interstate 5, the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and the Foothill Transportation Corridor, in Year 2020.
In its analysis of traffic mitigation, the Antonio Parkway traffic analysis provides a list of specific transportation improvements to meet to 2020 travel demands. The listing includes new roadways, special study areas (which include engineering feasibility and a more detailed description of the types of improvements to be implemented), and intersections which are candidates for improvement.
It identifies project responsibility towards proposed mitigation, and assigns project responsibility according to whether the project causes the deficiency (full responsibility for the mitigation), or increases the deficiency (fair share participation in the improvement). The traffic analysis also identifies that fair share would be determined as part of an areawide transportation improvement program for this part of South Orange County, which in this case will probably be assigned to the developer of the proposed land use.
This methodology and approach is consistent with CMP requirements, and has been implemented in the Draft EIR of a County of Orange project that is associated with broader-level land use designations characteristic of the general plan and zoning stage of project review.
Further, the County of Orange Growth Management Program (GMP) Traffic Implementation Manual requires that these identified deficiencies be included in traffic analyses to judge the impacts of new development in unincorporated Orange County. This level and type of project is not included in the Manual's listing of projects exempt from GMP requirements.
Recommended Action:
The City of Mission Viejo requests that the MCAS El Toro Reuse Plan Draft EIR be revised and recirculated, with the conduct of a traffic analysis similar in scope and methodology to the Antonio Parkway Draft EIR. The City finds that both projects are being analyzed with broader-level land use designations characteristic of the general plan and zoning stage of project review, and argues that a traffic analysis addressing CMP and Measure M requirements can be conducted for the Reuse Plan project.
4. Use of Draft EIR for Environmental Clearance of Future Projects: Environmental Clearance of Interim Land Uses:
Narrative discussion in the Reuse Plan indicates that the Draft EIR, once certified, would be used as environmental clearance for subsequent levels of entitlement on the base property. Specifically, the Reuse Plan identifies that:
a) the reuse of property under the Community Reuse Plan is anticipated over a 20-year period, with stages of development likely to be tied to the phasing of the airport and its facilities [Reuse Plan, page 37].
b) "In the interim, a variety of civilian uses will be permitted on a case-by-case basis, as long as the uses are consistent with the general range of uses contemplated in the Community Reuse Plan and as long as they do not compromise the ability to implement the Community Reuse Plan in a timely fashion" [Reuse Plan, page 37].
c) "For any proposed interim use permitted under this alternative, the potential environmental impacts of the interim use will be measured against the certified Community Reuse Plan EIR to determine what additional environmental analysis or documentation, if any, is necessary before the specific interim use is approved. Most interim uses which are likely to be compatible with implementation of this reuse alternative will probably be within the scope of the analysis in the Reuse Plan EIR, but some unanticipated interim reuses may require supplemental environmental analysis and documentation [Reuse Plan, page 66]."
d) "If an interim use is proposed before the EIR has been certified, the County will evaluate the proposal on its merits under existing land use regulations and attach appropriate conditions of approval [Reuse Plan, page 66].
These statements indicate that the certified EIR is intended to be used as an umbrella environmental approval that is capable of allowing interim uses on the base property that is consistent with the County of Orange General Plan. This degree of environmental clearance seems contradictory to a policy level of approval that is stated as justification for the ADT level of analysis conducted in the traffic study.
Recommended Action:
In the event that the Lead Agency approves the tiered EIR approach as currently established in the Draft EIR for the MCAS El Toro Community Reuse Plan, the City of Mission Viejo establishes that the traffic analysis of this tiered EIR cannot be used as an umbrella environmental clearance for any subsequent development projects, including the approval of interim uses on the project site. The EIR must first be supplemented with a traffic analysis addressing the deficiencies identified in these comments, thereby allowing the subsequent traffic analysis to be adequate to assess the requirements of the Congestion Management Program and the Orange County Measure M Growth Management Program.
Further, this new and supplemental traffic analysis must undergo public review and comment by the same agencies reviewing the Tier 1 Draft EIR.
5. Quantification of Project Impacts:
Vehicle Miles Traveled:
The Draft EIR traffic study includes narrative discussion and a summary of Year 2020 forecast Vehicle Miles Traveled within the region (Table S-3), for the three reuse alternatives. The report states that each of the reuse alternatives is forecasted to increase the year 2020 daily VMT within Orange County by 0.8 to 1.3 percent, and to increase the VMT for the entire region by zero to 0.3 percent.
While a comparison of Vehicle Miles Traveled is an important component in understanding transportation behavior, and quantifying mobile source air emissions, the traffic study should also include a comparison of average daily trips generated by the project alternatives, in comparison to the average daily trips generated by the current use of the base as a military operation. The ADT assessment, and a resultant peak hour analyses, allows for a traditional understanding of circulation impacts within the study area.
A review of the MCAS El Toro Reuse Plan identifies that the existing ADT of the military operation of the base is 31,000 ADT. In turn, the Reuse Alternatives generate the following ADT:
Proposed Project:
Commercial Passenger/Cargo
263,390 ADT (750% increase)
Alternative B:
Cargo/General Aviation
310,610 ADT (902% increase)
Alternative C:
Nonaviation Uses
305,240 ADT (885% increase)
Recommended Action:
The transportation impacts of an Average Daily Trip increase ranging from 750% to 900% over existing 1995 levels, is a significant issue that should be quantified in the Draft EIR traffic study. This requirement is further consistent with traffic analyses reporting requirements identified by the County of Orange Growth Management Plan Transportation Implementation Manual.
6 . Use of ADT Analysis:
The Draft EIR traffic study states that the impacts to the circulation system in the study area are identified by average daily traffic (ADT) volume to capacity (V/C) ratio analysis. The study further states that "The use of ADT link volumes and capacities is consistent with the General Plan level of detail being used for the reuse evaluation and the mitigation program is also described at that General Plan level of detail. During subsequent studies, and in particular, during phasing of the project, more detailed traffic analyses will be carried out. These will address roadway links and intersections throughout the study area and define in some detail the extent of improvements required for each of those phases."
The philosophy and approach used in the Draft EIR traffic analysis seems to be contradictory to statements identified in the MCAS El Toro Reuse Plan and to the levels of approval secured to date for the subject property. According to the Reuse Plan, the Orange County General Plan was already amended by Measure A in November 1994. In conjunction with the General Plan amendment, MCAS El Toro was designated as a civilian airport planning area which shall "serve a substantial portion of the county's air transportation needs, including air carrier transportation of both passengers and cargo."
The submittal of the Reuse Plan, with its detail of the number of acres devoted to specific land uses for each of the alternatives, seems to mirror the process of establishing a specific plan for the subject site, since the General Plan land use designations have already been established. Neither the Congestion Management Program Traffic Impact Analysis list of exempt projects, nor the County of Orange Growth Management Plan Transportation Implementation Manual list of exempt projects, identify this type of submittal to be exempt from a traffic analysis that includes AM and PM peak level of service of all signalized intersections.
Recommended Action:
Revise the traffic study to include an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) peak hour analysis, in addition to an ADT analysis, as required by the Congestion Management Program, the Measure M Growth Management Program, and the County of Orange Growth Management Plan Transportation Implementation Manual.
7. Arterial Highway Impact:
The summary diagram of miles of arterial highways impacted by the three alternatives requires more supplement. Information currently provided in the table is illustrated in a vacuum; for example, the table identifies that the proposed project of a commercial passenger/cargo airport would impact 26.3 miles of arterial highway.
To understand this impact, the table should also include data which identifies the total miles of arterial highway in the project study area. This then allows for a comparison of miles impacted by the project, in relation to the total arterial miles in the study area. For example, if the total number of arterial miles in the study area was calculated at 35.0 miles, the impact of 26.3 of those miles by the proposed project would advise the reader that 75% of the arterial miles within the study area would be significantly impacted by the proposal.
Recommended Action:
Revise the traffic analysis to provide a level of significance comparison identifying the total arterial miles impacted as well as the total arterial miles in the study area. Further identify each local jurisdiction which has arterial roadway miles impacted by the proposed project, and the respective lane miles of impact.
8. Long-Range (Year 2020) Analysis:
Reuse Plan Absorption Rate:
The Draft EIR traffic study states that the long-range (Year 2020) forecasted levels of service for the buildout of each respective reuse plan "is considered a worst case approach, since full absorption of some of the land uses being proposed will probably not actually occur until after year 2020 according to the Reuse Plan market and economic analysis" (page 6).
According to Table 5-12 of the Reuse Plan, the proposed project--a commercial passenger/cargo airport--is assumed to be fully absorbed by Year 2020. It is the other alternatives being considered in the Reuse Plan that are projected to be built-out after Year 2020. Given the high number of unfunded future projects, the worst case analysis should not assume the implementation of unfunded and uncommitted capital improvement projects, as previously identified in Comment 2. The Draft EIR should discuss Alternatives B and C and the length of time required to develop full use, and the associated transportation improvements needed during its phased development subsequent to Year 2020.
Recommended Action:
Revise the Draft EIR traffic study to appropriately define the timeframe for development of the proposed project and the alternatives, with the recognition that the commercial airport/cargo project is projected for full buildout by Year 2020; and,
Revise the Draft EIR traffic study to appropriately identify the funded and committed transportation improvements that can be incorporated in the baseline traffic analysis by Year 2020; and the additional transportation improvements needed by each alternative to support each alternative's phasing of development.
9. Aviation Traffic Assumptions:
The DEIR traffic study states that "The amount of vehicle traffic generated by the aviation uses assumed in Alternatives A and B were determined as part of the air traffic demand forecasting carried out as part of the Base reuse study" (page 3).
The Reuse Plan references a 1994 Wilbur Smith study, which was used to measure the share of passengers projected to be visitors to the region. The Reuse Plan also references enplanement projections in a "Preliminary Aviation Market Assessment," which canvassed the Year 2020 demand for annual airline passengers, and the proportionate demand that would be served by each of the airports in the region.
Recommended Action:
Revise the Draft EIR to: identify the specific study which contributed towards the calculation of vehicle traffic for the aviation-related alternatives; and refer to, and include, as an appendix, the methodology and assumptions used for vehicle traffic generation of the aviation uses.
10. Freeway Deficiencies:
The Draft EIR traffic study states that "Although minor project related freeway impacts were identified, it is considered unlikely that actual freeway deficiencies will occur when it is recognized that the 2020 setting analyzed in this report is a worst case scenario not only from the standpoint of absorption of the Reuse Plan but also for the freeway system in particular since the long-range (2020) forecasts assume that the Transportation Corridors are in operation as tollways rather than free facilities" (page 6).
In absence of an ICU level of service analysis in the traffic study--which includes an assessment of peak period traffic on freeway on-ramps and off-ramps in the study area, as noted in Comment 1-C--the statement of minimal freeway deficiencies cannot be verified.
Recommended Action:
To be able to adequately report on the degree of freeway impacts resulting from the proposed project, the Draft EIR traffic study needs to be revised to incorporate: an ICU level of analysis; a baseline level of improvements that include only committed and fully funded transportation improvements; a revised area of study that reflects the roadway improvements which will be impacted by project traffic at the established threshold of a 1% increase in the volume/capacity ratio of the impacted intersection; and a peak period analysis of the freeway on-ramps and off-ramps located in the revised study area.
In at least one-section of I-5, there is a significant impact (Level of Service F at 1.26) near Alicia Parkway which is of concern to the City of Mission Viejo. The Draft EIR traffic study should be revised to include this intersection, and identify mitigation necessary to eliminate any diversion of project-related freeway traffic to City streets.
11. Internal Circulation:
Interface of On-Site Ring Road with Arterial Roadway System: The Draft EIR traffic study states that "the on-site circulation system in Alternatives A and B is essentially a ring road type of system that would provide for circulation around the airfield independent of the surrounding arterials" (page 6).
This statement is incorrect. For Alternative A in particular, the access and circulation system--as identified in Figure 3-2 of the MCAS El Toro Community Reuse Plan--identifies a perimeter road with specific connections that are dependent upon the surrounding arterials. Specifically, the perimeter road includes connections at Irvine Blvd, Trabuco Road, and Marine Way, and also includes future spur connections on the north to Portola Parkway, on the east to Alton Parkway, and on the south to Jeronimo Road.
Many of these streets have future improvements which the Draft EIR recognizes as unfunded. The Reuse Plan further states that connections to the arterial highway system are necessary to gain access to the regional freeway system with a future connection to the Eastern Transportation Corridor.
Recommended Action:
Revise the Draft EIR traffic study to accurately represent the interdependency of the adjacent arterial streets to the functionality of the on-site right road; and, identify the required improvements and fair-share contributions necessitated by the proposed project to mitigate capacity needs caused by the project upon these arterial roadways.
12. Transportation Modeling:
Transportation SubArea Model Documentation:
The Draft EIR traffic analysis uses a sub-area model--the El Toro Sub-Area Model (ETSAM)--to analyze the long-range transportation patterns and transportation impacts resulting from the MCAS Reuse Plan alternatives. The traffic study refers the reader to two documents to better understand the technical characteristics of the modeling effort: the "El Toro Sub-Area Model (ETSAM) Traffic Model Description: July 1996, and the "Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM 2.7): Model Description and Validation Report: June 1996." These documents have not been included in the Draft EIR as technical appendices.
Specifically, the MCAS El Toro Reuse Plan identifies that the regional demand for commercial passenger and cargo aircraft exceeds current and planned capacities at seven airports located in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside/San Bernardino counties. Further, the Reuse Plan states that "Without the use of MCAS El Toro as a commercial airport, the future aviation capacity in the regional will fall short of the regional demand by at least 23 million annual airline passengers."
The traffic analysis seems to assume that a significant number of vehicular trips resulting from regional aircraft operations will be trips that are already accounted in regional modeling analysis, since the identified daily VMT increase, for Year 2020, ranges from zero to 0.3 percent region wide (in contrast to daily trip generation increases ranging from 750% to 900%). Thus, rather than adding trips to the region, the traffic analysis assumes that the introduction of the MCAS El Toro commercial airport will divert trips which would have been made to other airports in the Southern California region, and also reduce vehicle miles traveled as a result of such a diversion.
The capability of the ETSAM model to address multi-county vehicular patterns and regional shifts in such vehicular patterns, as a result of the introduction of a new regional airport, is not discussed in the Draft EIR. The need for such documentation and justification is warranted, due to assumptions in regional trip making patterns that seem to be inferred from the modeling output of the ETSAM model.
Recommended Action
The Draft EIR should be revised to include narrative discussion and a technical appendix on the capabilities of the ETSAM model to address multi-county vehicular patterns and regional shifts in such vehicular patterns, as a result of the introduction of a new regional airport. This data is of particular significance in assessing whether the boundaries of the study area (quantified as the locations where the project contribution to the volume/capacity ratio is 0.01 or greater, compared to the no-project conditions), is a realistic representation of the extent to which traffic impacts of the Reuse Plan are forecasted.
13. Traffic Analysis Assumptions:
Trip Generation Assumptions:
Table S-2 of the DEIR traffic study includes a trip generation summary of the aviation and nonaviation-related land uses for each of the Base Reuse alternatives. The trip generation is based upon socioeconomic factors of employment and population.
The Orange County GMP Traffic Analysis Manual states that "AM and PM peak hour and daily total traffic generation of the project shall be calculated using rates as specified by the County of Orange." The DEIR traffic analysis includes only a summary of the total trips generated by each type of land use.
Recommended Action:
Revise the Draft EIR traffic study to include documentation, in the form of an appendix, which identifies the specific trip generation rate that was used for each land use.
14. Daily Air Passengers Assumptions:
The Draft EIR Traffic Study conducts a comparative analysis of daily air passenger vehicle trips and daily cargo truck trips with and without the proposed project. In particular, the analysis assumes that John Wayne Airport will carry 15 million annual commercial air passengers in absence of the MCAS El Toro commercial airport by Year 2020.
The report needs to justify why a benchmark of 15 million annual passengers for John Wayne Airport was assumed in the base comparison. According to the Reuse Plan, John Wayne Airport handled 7.2 million annual passengers in 1995; further, the ceiling established through the settlement agreement with the City of Newport Beach is 8.4 million passengers. Although the agreement expires in Year 2005, the reliance upon 15 million annual passengers as the Year 2020 benchmark for John Wayne Airport needs to be established, with specific reference as to whether the 15 million annual passenger assumption has been analyzed in environmental documents associated with the existing airport facility.
Recommended Action:
Revise the Draft EIR traffic study to incorporate the approved benchmark of 8.4 million annual passengers for John Wayne Airport, as established through the settlement agreement with the City of Newport Beach; or, as an alternate, include reference documents which supersede the 8.4 million annual passenger benchmark and establish the 15 million annual passengers benchmark for John Wayne Airport.
15. Freeway Lane Capacity Assumptions:
Table 2-4 of the Draft EIR Traffic Study summarizes arterial and freeway roadway segments within the study area. This table includes a detail of the number of lanes planned for each roadway segment in Year 2020.
Recommended Action:
Revise the Draft EIR to incorporate the following comments:
a. Clarify how the lane assumptions were established. For example, on the freeway segments, there should be a footnote clarifying if the lane assumptions include auxiliary lanes, and whether these auxiliary lanes were modeled with a specific capacity of ADT per lane.
b. Clarify if the lane assumptions include only funded and committed master plan improvements, or if the assumptions also include roadway improvements that have not yet been approved or committed for funding. As detailed in Comment 2, the baseline analysis should not include any roadway improvement that has not yet been committed for implementation in an adopted Capital Improvement Program or roadway fee program.
16. Traffic Impact Analysis:
The argument given in the traffic analysis and in the DEIR to justify not performing a peak hour traffic analysis is not persuasive. The traffic consultant has considerable experience performing peak hour analyses on nonaviation land use proposals at this level of detail, and the aviation studies clearly have developed sufficient detail to be able to derive or employ peak hour passenger activity levels and convert them to peak hour equivalent vehicular arrivals and departures. The failure to complete a peak hour traffic analysis is a major flaw in the DEIR. The use of "daily volumes" compered to "daily capacities", particularly as defined in the DEIR, is inappropriate, and masks real, valid, and foreseeable peak hour traffic impacts on key freeway segments, freeway ramps, and at key arterial intersections. Th daily capacity values employed are not consistent with conventional performance standards employed for traffic impact analysis procedures. A full peak hour analysis needs to be performed and circulated for public review.
17. The traffic analysis assumes full buildout of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways without affirming commitment of funding or in fact commitment to build, in the case of numerous facilities and improvements critical to circulation in the study area. We believe the analysis dramatically understates actual deficiencies.
18. With the only recently completed widening of the I-5 in the vicinity of the proposed project, and the not-yet completed "flagship" improvement project at the El Toro Y, it is particularly vital that the traffic analysis not assume it is acceptable to load the freeways to a 1.25 v/c ratio.
19. The use of such a daily capacity standard is particularly inappropriate to apply on the toll transportation corridors, which by their nature are designed to served commuting traffic and are and will be sized to provide a high level of peak period traffic service (not degraded congested operations) so that patrons will still be willing to pay tolls to use them.
20. Particularly given conflicting data and representations in the various technical reports and the DEIR, it is essential that backup data on the traffic analysis be made available for public review before adequate review and comment on the traffic analysis can be completed. This would include, but not necessarily be limited to, backup volume plots for all alternative, plus a select link/select zone plot for each development alternative.
21. The traffic analysis technical report indicates that an employment placeholder of 13,000 jobs was used in the traffic model for El Toro "existing conditions" (military operations). Was a similar placeholder used for operations at John Wayne Airport?
22. Substantiation is required for the method of determining how many trips were reduced at non-El Toro airports an diverted instead to El Toro, and where those trips originated by zone. This detail is essential for adequate public review given the intensity of the proposed development and the critical nature of the VMT determination.
23. There is no adequate demonstration in the EIR that the internal loop roadway system in Alternative A will work.
24. There is a major problem with the determination of VMT in the traffic report and the incorporation of that data and interpretation of it in the DEIR. There appears to be assumptions made in parts of the technical analyses about 10 mile and 30 mile trip lengths, and there are significant inferences drawn and claims made about VMT reductions that simply much be fully detailed.
25. The handling of traffic mitigation in the DEIR is woefully inadequate; there is no demonstration of the full extent of significant traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway system and there is no demonstration that those impacts are in fact mitigatable. These analyses cannot be deferred to a later stage of analysis; the critical tactical "branch point" decision is about to be made based on this tier of environmental review; and it is acceptable not to identify and disclose and propose specific feasible mitigation for impacts that should properly be estimated now.
26. The DEIR gives total dollar figures for offsite roadway mitigation improvements needed for each alternative but no back up is provided to permit evaluation of the adequacy of the mitigation proposed or the adequacy of the dollar allowances made. The allocation for Alternative A in particular is almost certainly way low. An itemization of the improvements made under each alternative and a cost buildup for each improvement must be supplied and circulated for public review. Without that information there is no ability to verify and critique the basis for those estimates - they simply become unsubstantiated assertions.
27. The traffic analysis lacks any kind of coverage of weekend or holiday traffic impacts, particularly on I-5. I-5 is the major regional route connecting the Los Angeles and San Diego metropolitan areas, and weekend congestion on I-5 is common during spring, summer, and fall weekends, over the Thanksgiving holiday, and at other peak holiday times. Since Alternative A would move more traffic demand onto I-5 connected with holiday travel to and from the airport, this should have been analyzed in the traffic analysis and DEIR.
AVIATION DEMAND
28. What significance does P&D Technologies place in the fairly high correlation between (1) the "natural logarithm of population" variable, and (2) the "natural logarithm of domestic air fare" variable; in the multiple regression forecast equation in Appendix C of the Preliminary Aviation Market Assessment (Report No. 2, January 25, 1996)?
29. Given that the Southern California air passenger aviation market could be considered to be a "maturing market", with employment and population growth rates less in the future than in the historical past, what factual basis is there for structuring a regional forecast model that implicitly assumes that aviation demand is going to be increasing at an increasing rate 25 years into the future? Around what future year does the DEIR suggest that the region would be starting to approach "practical buildout"; and when would the rate of growth of aviation demand would start to taper off?
30. Given the relatively recent practical emergency of such revolutionary communications tools as cellular phones and video-conferencing, plus the Internet, aren't there new risks in assuming the validity of "traditional forecasting techniques based on history going back 25 years, for business travel two decades into the future? Wouldn't it be prudent to anticipate the possibility of a more-than-trivial impact of these factors on business travel by air?
31. What accounts for the substantial and dramatic jump in air cargo total tonnage at JWA from 5,000 tons in 1993 to 13,000 tons in 1994? (Table 3-8, Preliminary Aviation Market Assessment)
32. Zones used in the RADAM model seem to be very coarse when considering representative travel times and travel distances to various airports from each zone. What is the exact source of the 1990 travel time data in Appendix D of the Preliminary Aviation Market Assessment, and how precisely was that data developed? What is the exact source of the Year 2020 travel time data in Appendix D, and how precisely was that data developed? Several of the values in this table look extremely suspect and appear to bias the results against utilization of Ontario Airport. We note for example the entry of 154 minutes from Mission Viejo to Ontario Airport. That is over 2-1/2 hours, and that is not a credible figure, particularly with the opening of the Eastern Corridor in 1999, which will shorten travel times to Ontario from South Orange County. We also note the entry of 117 minutes from Anaheim to Ontario, which would be nearly 2 hours. That also is not a credible figure. Please re-examine the entire set of data for Ontario Airport in particular and submit revised data particularly for the Orange County zones to Ontario. What will revised projections be for Ontario Airport and the other airports as a result?
AIR QUALITY
33. The air quality evaluation of alternatives will need to be redone and recirculated once the problems are ironed out of the VMT analysis.
34. We take exception to the reporting out of an "improvement" in air quality due to an airport at El Toro. For Orange County decision makers the pertinent comparative data is contained in Table 23, presented on Page 40 of the Air Quality Technical Report. That table properly shows that the emissions directly generated by Alternative A are the worst in all pollutant cases, compared to either Alternative B or C. In fact, Alternative A produces over 7 times the amount of CO as the current base operation does, and almost four times the oxides of nitrogen.
NOISE
35. Why didn't the DEIR or the Community Reuse plan studies respond to the requests of the local communities to supply noise analyses going beyond merely the 65 db CNEL contour connected with military operations?
36. Please supply diagrams giving full and complete flight tracks of flights departing Runway 7, clearly delineating the full length of any flight track that turns right after leaving Runway 7. Please carry those flight tracks out in distance far enough so that all local residents can trace the flight track either to the coastline (if the flight track crosses the coastline) or to some other recognizable location distant from Mission Viejo.
37. Letter from Amanda F. Susskind, Attorney at Law, dated October 7, 1996 (attached and incorporated by this reference).
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
38. We question the appropriateness of having project objectives that by definition can only be met by an aviation alternative. This seems inappropriate in a document designed to evaluate whether an aviation or nonaviation approach is the better public policy decision.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
39. We are concerned that all three major alternatives -A, B, and C - generate such high levels of daily traffic. We believe the DEIR should have included a "build" alternative that, in keeping with the purposes of the base reuse planning process, basically replaced the total employment level lost by base closure. Such an alternative would have had dramatically lower traffic impacts than Alternatives A, B, or C, and would have fit within the constraints of the regional circulation system, and would in all probability been the "environmentally superior alternative", instead of Alternative A.
LETTER FROM AMANDA F. SUSSKIND, ATTORNEY AT LAW, RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
Attached to these comments is a letter from Amanda F. Susskind, Attorney at Law, dated October 7, 1996 regarding MCAS El Toro Community Reuse Plan DEIR. This letter is hereby incorporated by reference.
ADDITIONAL CITY COUNCIL/RESIDENT COMMENTS
Attached to these comments are minutes from the September 17, 1996 City Council meeting and embodied in those minutes are additional City Council and resident comments on the subject Reuse Plan and DEIR. The minutes are hereby incorporated by reference.
LETTER FROM D. MICHAEL KARN, COMMERCIAL AIRLINE PILOT AND MISSION VIEJO RESIDENT
Attached to these comments is a letter from Commercial Airline Pilot and Mission Viejo Resident Michael Karn dated September 30, 1996. This letter is hereby incorporated by reference.