The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About18 - John Wayne Airport General Aviation Improvement Program Draft EIRQ SEW Pp�T CITY OF �m z NEWPORT BEACH c�<,FORN'P City Council Staff Report March 12, 2019 Agenda Item No. 18 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Grace K. Leung, City Manager - 949-644-3001, gleung@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Tara Finnigan, Deputy City Manager, tfinnigan@newportbeachca.gov PHONE: 949-644-3035 TITLE: John Wayne Airport General Aviation Improvement Program Draft EIR ABSTRACT - The County of Orange is considering modernizing the general aviation (GA) facilities at John Wayne Airport (JWA). The proposed JWA General Aviation Improvement Program (GAIP) would provide a framework for updating the airport's GA facilities. After reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the GAIP, City of Newport Beach staff and consultants believe the GAIP would expand and intensify operations in areas of the JWA that now support light GA. The Project will also increase the number of corporate and private jets that depart JWA, resulting in potentially negative impacts on communities surrounding JWA. Pending possible further environmental review, project Alternative 3, as presented in the DEIR and if selected by the County, would be the least impactful on Newport Beach neighborhoods. RECOMMENDATION: a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and b) Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Orange County Board of Supervisors requesting the Supervisors, after conducting project specific environmental review as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt project Alternative 3 as presented in the draft Environmental Impact Report for the JWA General Aviation Improvement Program. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. 18-1 John Wayne Airport General Aviation Improvement Program Draft EIR March 12, 2019 Page 2 DISCUSSION: General Aviation and John Wayne Airport General Aviation (GA) is the term used to describe civil aviation operations other than regularly scheduled, commercial air carrier service. There's a wide range of aircraft used in GA. The lighter and generally quieter GA aircraft include helicopters, single- and twin - engine planes, and turbo props. The second category of GA aircraft includes the larger and noisier private or corporate jets. The lighter GA planes follow departure paths that generally turn away from Newport Beach shortly after takeoff, while GA jets departing JWA fly directly over our community. JWA's current "GA aircraft mix" is mostly comprised of the lighter GA aircraft and some GA jets. The mix continues to change and many of those changes are reflected in the shifting usage of the airport's GA facilities. According to the County of Orange (County), there are approximately 500 private GA planes currently based at JWA. Also according to the County, the number of general aviation operations from JWA has decreased nearly 20 percent over the last 25 years. That said, GA still accounts for nearly 70 percent, or approximately 200,000, of the airport's total operations per year (an operation includes the arrival and departure of one aircraft). Several factors led the County to initiate a comprehensive review and update of JWA's GA facilities. These factors include: • The introduction of new aircraft into the GA fleet; • The perceived need to improve some of JWA's aging GA structures; • The need to bring JWA into compliance with current Federal Aviation Administration standards for airport design; and • The expiration of, or pending expiration of, a number of its GA -related, long-term leases. The project to modernize JWA's aviation facilities, the GAIP, formally began approximately two years ago. General Aviation Improvement Program The City of Newport Beach (City) has closely tracked the proposed GAIP since spring 2017 due to the City's long -held position that it will "support any plan or project that maintains, and oppose any plan or project that proposes any significant changes to, the existing level of general aviation operations, [or] the current level of general aviation support facilities ..." at JWA. (See, Council Policy A-17, Section E, Subsection 4). Any changes — whether related to airport operations or facilities — that would encourage further change to the GA mix, by reducing the presence of lighter GA aircraft and introducing more of the noisier GA jet operations, have the potential to adversely affect the Newport Beach community by, among other things, increasing noise and impacting air quality for city residents. 18-2 John Wayne Airport General Aviation Improvement Program Draft EIR March 12, 2019 Page 3 GAIP Environmental Review The County began the environmental review process for its GAIP in spring 2017. The City reviewed the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study and provided comments to the JWA staff via a letter dated April 25, 2017. (Attachment A) JWA released the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the GAIP on September 20, 2018. The DEIR analyzed the proposed project (Proposed Project) and project Alternative 1 in detail, as well as two other alternatives and a no project alternative. The summary of key design elements of the Proposed Project and Alternatives is set forth in the DEIR Summary of Key Design Elements for the Proposed Project and Alternatives, Table 1-1. (Attachment B) The DEIR also contains Conceptual Facilities Layouts for the Proposed Project and Alternatives, in Exhibits 3-1, 3-4, 5-1, 5-3 and 5-4. (Attachment C) Though the DEIR essentially provides five project alternatives, only the Proposed Project and Alternative 1 were studied in detail during the County's environmental review. The Proposed Project and Alternatives 1 and 2 include provisions for bringing JWA's GA facilities up to current FAA standards, but they also contain provisions for expanded Fixed Based Operations (FBOs) (2-3 depending upon the alternative). Each FBO could include a new GA terminal and at least one of those would have an international GA facility. Based on City staff's review of the DEIR, staff has determined that Alternatives 1 and 2 would reduce the storage capacity for the lighter GA aircraft and make way for more storage space for GA jets. Further, the additional amenities — security, customs and immigration — would increase the appeal of JWA for those who travel via private or corporate jets, particularly those returning from international destinations. Thus, in addition to having more GA jets based at the airport, these options would very likely also increase the number of itinerant GA jets utilizing JWA. Also, City staff is concerned about statements in the DEIR such as "... Regularly scheduled commercial charter operators have approached the County, expressing their interest in initiating regularly scheduled air service at the Airport...." Based on this, and other statements, it appears JWA is considering the possible expansion of commercial operations into an area of JWA which now supports light GA. This could potentially result in negative impacts on our community, including, but not limited to, an increase in the number of GA Jets departing JWA, which create additional noise and impact air quality for Newport Beach residents. Alternative 3 would bring the airport's GA facilities up to current FAA standards, but it would not expand the FBOs or significantly alter the JWA's current GA aircraft mix. Per Table 5-3 in the DEIR, the JWA Forecast of Operations by Aircraft Engine Type / Comparison of Alternatives (Attachment D), Alternative 3 would also have the least amount of GA jet operations by the year 2026. The No Project alternative would not bring the airport's GA facilities up to current FAA standards and the number of based aircraft (i.e., aircraft based at JWA the majority of the year) would be higher than any other alternative. 18-3 John Wayne Airport General Aviation Improvement Program Draft EIR March 12, 2019 Page 4 City Comments on DEIR Given the City's concern regarding the potential impact of the GAIP, staff worked with a consultant and outside counsel to prepare and submit, on November 14, 2018, a comment letter on the DEIR on behalf of the City. The letter, included as Attachment E, asks the County to conduct additional analysis and provide further information on certain aspects of the DEIR, including, but not limited to: noise, flight pattern assumptions, potential changes to the noise contour/sensitive receptors, and potential health risks. The County has not yet provided its responses to the comments submitted by the City or other organizations as part of the Final EIR; however, the County Board of Supervisors could be asked to review and certify the EIR as early as April of this year. Aviation Committee Discussion The GAIP and DEIR were discussed with the Aviation Committee at its November 5, 2018 and March 4, 2019 meetings. City consultant Tom Edwards explained the Proposed Project and Alternatives to the Aviation Committee on March 4. After the presentation, Council Member Herdman asked the Aviation Committee to comment and provide a recommendation that City staff could present to the City Council. After receiving public comment, the Aviation Committee deliberated and debated as to whether it was ready to make such a recommendation and, if so, what it would recommend. The Aviation Committee ultimately recommended Alternative 3, with reservations, as the Committee members raised concerns about and requested more information on issues related to security, the noise curfew, and the definition of GA, among others. The Aviation Committee agreed to move forward with the recommendation on March 4, as long as staff brought more information on these issues to the Aviation Committee's next meeting. Recommendation City staff is recommending the City Council take a formal position and ask the Orange County Board of Supervisors to adopt Alternative 3, after conducting project specific environmental review as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report. This recommendation is consistent with the Aviation Committee's recommendation and the position of the Airport Working Group and SPON/AirFair. (See Attachment F [letter to the City stating belief that Alternative 3, if selected, would have the least impact on Newport Beach neighborhoods].) NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). WE John Wayne Airport General Aviation Improvement Program Draft EIR March 12, 2019 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — April 25, 2017 comment letter to JWA Re: JWA GAIP EIR Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Attachment B — JWA GAIP DEIR Table 1-1, Summary of Key Design Elements Attachment C — Conceptual Facilities Layouts for the Proposed Project and Alternatives Attachment D — JWA GAIP DEIR Table 5-3, JWA Forecast of Operations by Aircraft Engine Type Comparison of Alternatives Attachment E — November 14, 2018 comment letter to JWA re: JWA GAIP DEIR Attachment F — Airport Working Group & SPON/AirFair February 20, 2019 Letter Supporting Alternative 3 18-5 ATTACHMENT A rr7 CSL!.0RN A April 25, 2017 Ms. Leah Choum JWA Project Manager 3150 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 NOP627@ocair.com 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3001 1 949 644-3020 FAX newportbeachca.gov Re: John Wayne Airport General Aviation Improvement Program: Notice of Preparation of Program Environmental Impact Report 627 (IP # 16-432) IIN F.TiLTA lgo] 1307a,IA The City of Newport Beach (City) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment upon the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) for the John Wayne Airport (JWA) General Aviation Improvement Program (GRIP). The City commends the County of Orange (County) and the Airport Director for operating JWA in a manner that seeks to balance air transportation needs with residents' quality of life. In continuing to do so, the GAIP should aim to satisfy the county's air transportation needs (including general aviation) without expanding the operational footprint of JWA. With that in mind, the City has the following comments on the NOP and IS. Project Description As described in the NOP, the GAIP would provide a framework for general aviation improvements at JWA with the goal of maximizing the efficiency and safety of JWA facilities in order to prioritize future improvements. The GAIP could provide a basis for the review of potential future improvements proposed by fixed -base operators as part of leases at the airport. The NOP states that any improvements under the GAIP would be "confined to the existing Airport footprint (i.e., no expansion of the general aviation uses beyond the current Airport limits)." (NOP, p. 7.) The City strongly supports this aspect of the project description. The City would oppose the adoption of any alternative that allows for impacts outside the existing airport footprint. Indeed, the City and County have a previous agreement from October 200E (the "Cooperative Agreement" and known as the "Spheres Agreement") that suggests that any acquisition of land (generally associated with addition of a second commercial carrier runway or expansion to the south of the existing runway) -Ms. Leah Choum JWA Project Manager April 25, 2017 Page 2 would require the approval of Newport Beach. In this manner, Newport Beach has expressed its strong interest in approving or vetoing any expansion of the JWA operational footprint. Further, the City is a partner with multiple other cities within the JWA arrival and departure corridors (the "Corridor Cities"). As a member of the Corridor Cities, we have pledged to (among other things): Oppose any expansion of JWA beyond its current (2007) footprint; • Oppose a second air carrier runway or extension of the existing runway; and • Oppose any significant reduction in general aviation operations/ facilities. Of primary concern to the City with respect to JWA is noise. Goal N 3 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element is to protect "Newport Beach residents from adverse noise impacts of commercial air carrier operations at John Wayne Airport as provided in the City Council Airport Policy." Further, Policy N 3.6 (Existing Level of General Aviation Operations) of the Noise Element is to "[s]upport any plan or proposal that maintains, and oppose any plan or project that proposes any significant changes to the existing level of general aviation operations and general aviation support facilities." The NOP states that a "key design" element of the GAIP is to incorporate, to the maximum extent feasible, "a comparable number and type of general aviation - based aircraft facilities, as compared to existing occupied facilities." The City supports the strong and long—term presence of General Aviation at JWA and this objective. (NOP, p. 9.) Air Quality The IS states the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("Draft PEIR") will evaluate potential emissions from construction and operational activities of the project, as well as the project's compliance with federal, state, and regional air quality standards. (IS, p. 33.) Goal NR 9 of the City's General Plan Natural Resources Element calls for the reduced air pollution emissions from aircraft and ground operations at JWA. To that end, the General Plan contains the following policies: NR 9.1 Efficient Airport Operations: Work with John Wayne Airport to minimize air pollution generated by stationary and nonstationary sources. 18-7 Ms. Leah Choum JWA Project Manager April 25, 2017 Page 3 ■ NR 9.2 Aircraft and Equipment Emission Reduction: Work with John Wayne Airport to encourage development and use of reduced emission ground service equipment and transit vehicles. Mitigation measures for any significant air quality impacts should address both mobile and stationary sources, and should include the use of reduced -emission or alternatively fueled (e.g., CNG/LNG) equipment and vehicles. Land Use and Planning The IS concludes the GAIP could cause a potentially significant land use impact. (IS, p. 43.) The Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan provides for development of residential uses in the Airport Area outside of the JWA 65 A -weighted decibels (dBA) community noise equivalent level (CNEL) noise contour. Residential uses in the Airport Area would later be developed as clusters of residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways. These would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with ground -level convenience retail uses, and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a "complete" neighborhood. Any evaluation of the potential effects of the GAIP should be considered in light of the General Plan's overall policy vision for the Airport Area. In addition, any potential inconsistencies with the General Plan's Noise Element (discussed below) should be thoroughly evaluated and, if necessary, mitigated to less -than -significant levels. As indicated in the IS, the Draft Program EIR should also evaluate the consistency of the planned improvements with the requirements of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). In addition, the City recommends that the Draft PEiR analyze the GAIP's consistency with the JWA Settlement Agreement, as amended. The analysis should consider whether any of the planned improvements would interfere with the requirements of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) adopted by the County in connection with the JWA Settlement Agreement Amendment and Final El 617. The Draft PElR should also evaluate the GAIP's consistency with the City of Newport Beach City Council Airport Policy.' If potential inconsistencies are identified, mitigation measures must be imposed to ensure the GAIP is consistent with the AELUP, the Settlement Agreement, the City Council Airport Policy, and the City's General Plan. Noise Available at: htto://www.newportbeach�ca—.qov/home/showdocurnent?id=20996 18-8 Ms. Leah Choum JWA Project Manager April 25, 2017 Page 4 Noise impacts of the GAIP should be thoroughly evaluated, and if necessary, mitigated. The City has established 65 and 45 CNEL as the outdoor and indoor noise compatibility criteria for residential land uses. Further, the Noise Element of Chapter 12 of the City's General Plan include noise land use compatibility guidelines and noise standards for a variety of land use types. Policy N 1.8 (Significant Noise Impacts) requires "the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive users when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses." The CNEL increase in shown in the table below: CNEL (dBA) dBA increase 55 3 60 2 65 1 70 1 Over 75 Any increase is considered significant The Draft PER should incorporate these criteria into the thresholds used to evaluate noise impacts associated with the GAIP. If noise levels would exceed these thresholds, mitigation measures must be incorporated into the project to reduce noise levels to below the City's criteria. All efforts should be made to ensure that residents are not adversely affected by noise generated by the project. We thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the NOP and for our continued strong relationship with the County at JWA. Please continue to keep the City informed of this project and the status of the environmental review process by providing me with a copy of any notices issued under CEQA and for any public hearings on the Project. If you have any questions, please contact me at DKiff(d),newportbeachca.gov, or by telephone at 949-644-3001. Thank you again for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, C` Dave Kiff City Manager 18-9 Executive Summary ATTACHMENT B TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES Facilities Layout Proposed Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative Atortiativ • 2 .Full Service FBOs (1 3 Full Service FBOs (2 • 2 Full Service FBOs (Both • 2 Existing Full Service • 2 Existing Full Service Eastside and 1 Westside) Eastside and 1 Westside) Eastside) FBOs (Both have presence FBOs (Both have presence • New GA Terminal/GAF at • New GA Terminal/GAF at • New GA Terminal/GAF at on Eastside but one is split on Eastside but one is split FBO FBO FBO between east and west between east and west • 1 Limited Service FBO • 1 Limited Service FBO • 1 Limited Service FBO side) side) • 1 Existing Limited Service • 1 Existing Limited Service • 1 Existing Limited Service • 2 Existing Limited Service • 2 Existing Limited Service Brief Description FBOa FBOa FBOa FBOs FBOs • Correction of 4 existing • Correction of 4 existing • Correction of 4 existing • No GA Terminal/GAF • No GA Terminal/GAF non-standard design non-standard design non-standard design • Correction of 4 existing No correction of existing features features features non-standard design g non-standard design • 354 based aircraft • 356 based aircraft • 361 based aircraft features features • 167,900 annual operations • 168,600 annual operations • 169,400 annual operations • 490 based aircraft • 505 based aircraft • 197,600 annual operations • 201,000 annual operations • 15 Aircraft in Hangars • 15 Aircraft in Hangars • 17 Based Aircraft on • 17 Based Aircraft on Apron Apron Full Service FBO • 21,653 SF FBO Terminal • 21,653 SF FBO Terminal N/A N/A N/A Northwest • 3,953 SF GA Terminal • 3,953 SF GA Terminal • 1,952 SF GAF • 1,952 SF GAF • 355 Vehicle Parking • 355 Vehicle Parking Spaces Spaces • 15 Aircraft in Hangars • 15 Aircraft in Hangars • 15 Aircraft in Hangars • 5 Aircraft in Hangars • 2 Aircraft in Community • 15 Based Aircraft on • 15 Based Aircraft on • 15 Based Aircraft on • 20 Based Aircraft on Hangars Apron Apron Apron Apron • 18 Based Aircraft on Apron Full Service FBO • 21,653 SF FBO Terminal • 21,653 SF FBO Terminal • 21,653 SF FBO Terminal • 12,840 SF FBO Terminal • 12,840 SF FBO Terminal Northeast • 3,953 SF GA Terminal • 3,953 SF GA Terminal • 3,953 SF GA Terminal • No GA Terminal • No GA Terminal • 1,952 SF GAF • 1,952 SF GAF • 1,952 SF GAF • No GAF • No GAF • 246 Vehicle Parking • 413 Shared Vehicle • 413 Shared Vehicle • 164 Vehicle Parking • 164 Vehicle Parking Spaces Spaces Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Spaces 1-6 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT GENERAL AVIATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 18-10 Executive TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES Facilities Layout Proposed Project Alteimative i Alternative 2 Alternative 3No, Pro0rt Alternative • 15 Aircraft in Hangars • 15 Aircraft in Hangars • 6 Aircraft in Hangars • 23 Aircraft in Hangars • 15 Based Aircraft on • 15 Based Aircraft on • 17 Based Aircraft on • 17 Based Aircraft on Apron Apron Apron Apron • 20,000 SF FBO Terminal Full Service FBO N/A • 21,653 SF FBO Terminal • 21,653 SF FBO Terminal • 4,740 SF FBO Terminal • No GA Terminal Southeast • 3,953 SF GA Terminal • 3,953 SF GA Terminal • No GA Terminal • No GAF • 1,952 SF GAF • 1,952 SF GAF • No GAF • 232 Vehicle Parking Spaces • Vehicle parking shared • Vehicle parking shared • 210 Vehicle Parking with Full Service FBO NE with Full Service FBO NE Spaces • 30 Aircraft in Hangars • 45 Aircraft in Hangars • 30 Aircraft in Hangars • 11 Aircraft in Hangars • 25 Aircraft in Hangars • 32 Based Aircraft on • 47 Based Aircraft on • 30 Based Aircraft on • 37 Based Aircraft on • 35 Based Aircraft on Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron • 32,840 SF FBO Terminal Total • 43,306 SF FBO Terminal • 64,959 SF FBO Terminal • 43,306 SF FBO Terminal • 17,580 SF FBO Terminal • No GA Terminal Full Service FBOs • 7,906 SF GA Terminal • 11, 859 SF GA Terminal • 7,906 SF GA Terminal • No GA Terminal • No GAF • 3,904 SF GAF • 5,856 SF GAF • 3,904 SF GAF • No GAF • 396 Vehicle Parking Spaces • 601 Vehicle Parking • 768 Vehicle Parking • 413 Vehicle Parking • 374 Vehicle Parking Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces • 8 Aircraft On Apron • 8 Aircraft On Apron • 8 Aircraft On Apron • 8 Aircraft On Apron • 8 Aircraft On Apron Limited Service FBO • 6 Aircraft in Hangar (Lyon • 6 Aircraft in Hangar (Lyon • 6 Aircraft in Hangar (Lyon • 6 Aircraft in Hangar (Lyon • 6 Aircraft in Hangar (Lyon Martin Aviation Air Museum) Air Museum) Air Museum) Air Museum) Air Museum) • 80 Vehicle Parking Spaces • 80 Vehicle Parking Spaces • 80 Vehicle Parking Spaces • 80 Vehicle Parking Spaces • 80 Vehicle Parking Spaces Limited Service FBO • 17 Aircraft in Hangars • 17 Aircraft in Hangars • 17 Aircraft in Hangars • N/Ab • N/Ab Southwest • 62 Vehicle Parking Spaces • 62 Vehicle Parking Spaces • 62 Vehicle Parking Spaces • 8 Vehicle Parking Spaces • 8 Vehicle Parking Spaces Box Hangars • 30 Aircraft • 5 Aircraft • 19 Aircraft • 45 Aircraft • 45 Aircraft T -Hangars • 96 Aircraft Spaces • 114 Aircraft Spaces • 72 Aircraft Spaces • 111 Aircraft Spaces • 111 Aircraft Spaces Tie -downs • 88 Aircraft Spaces • 72 Aircraft Spaces • 132 Aircraft Spaces • 276 Aircraft Spaces • 302 Aircraft Spaces Shade Structures • N/A • N/A • N/A • 66 Aircraft Spaces • 66 Aircraft Spaces • 47 Aircraft on Apron • 47 Aircraft on Apron • 47 Aircraft on Apron Flight School • 52 Vehicle Parking Spaces • 52 Vehicle Parking Spaces • 52 Vehicle Parking Spaces Included with Southeast FBO Included with Southeast FBO JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT GENERAL AVIATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-7 18-11 Executive Sum TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES Facilities Layout proposed Project Alternative i �i0 ' Alternative OC Sherriffs Department • 5 Aircraft in Hangar • 5 Aircraft in Hangar • 5 Aircraft in Hangar Included with Northeast FBO Included with Northeast FBO • 21 Vehicle Parking Spaces • 21 Vehicle Parking Spaces • 20 Vehicle Parking Spaces (west side operation) (west side operation) ) Self Serve Aircraft . 14,545 SF • 14,545 SF • 14,545 SF N/A N/A Fuel Station & Wash Rack a There is one existing Limited Service FBO (Martin Aviation) that is not included in the GAIP because the lease extends to 2036, which is beyond the horizon year of the program. This Limited Service FBO is listed here to give a complete overview of general aviation facilities at JWA. b. The hangar at the Limited Service FBO Southwest accommodates transient aircraft. C Alternative 1 provides a box hangar for use by the Orange County Sherriffs Department, which would accommodate five aircraft. FBO: Fixed Based Operator; GA: General Aviation; GAF: General Aviation Facility; N/A: Not applicable; SF: square feet Source: AECOM 2018 1-8 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT GENERAL AVIATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 18-12 ATTACHMENT C TIFQDWNAPRO14- RAL SERVICE NW FBO APRON -444"GARS LTD SERVICE SW FSO AUTO PARKING (625 FULL SERVICE Ift 1`1210AU-0 PARKING {355 LTD SERV CE Sw F60 HANcws ±354 BASED AIRCRAFT FULL SERVICE NW FRO FIANGA U -so BOX AkINGLAMR -IE-DDWNAFRON- LTD SERVIC-E FOD AE-DOMAPRON, L2 U LQ kw 7� g ----------------------- -------------------------------- - — ---- - ------------------------------ ------------ ------- ): ----------- j� ---------------------------- t PAN.= 3f1ICCqVLW C FLIGHT SCHOOL AUTO PARKING ,-;n FULL SERVICE HE FOO AUTOKWOJG PM) FULL SERVICE NEFBO HANCWS RJGFFT SCHOOL RALIP SIGRALLTED EN-RAhk^E BOX HAINGAJRS FULL SEPh ICE NE FBO APRON Legenu On Airport Rukings FBO Cpmrnr4t4 HeNer FBOAprwt5U'5G&sedTrmnWI. Number 01 Aircraft Accomodawd Off Airport Bubffings -1--iarqar Tw4)mrAplon AJrPwIPoPwIYLM Sox Hangar ALft Pa6kg Souraw AECOM 2016 Conceptual Facilities Layout - Proposed Project Exhibit 3-1 John Wayne Airport Genera/ Aviation Improvement Program 4i 500 250 0 5w if Feet 18-13 a FULL SERVICE MH FBO APRON LSO SERVICE MN FEO AUTO PARKING (621 FULL SERVICE NW FDO AUTO PARKRdG065Y LTD SERVICE SW FBO HANGPM FULL SERVICE INP FIRG 1-AJJG4FL.5 ±356 BASED AIRCRAFT CCSDSM-IIAWGAR TIE_DCWH APRON LTi} SERVICE FBO MARTIN) APRON %4)OWHAPRON T1M)W H APRON LZI_ 5 i i AfWy ------------------------- -" ------------------ } i. --------------------- .----- ----------- ------------------------------- ��N�; E 7 3; E 7 a; JL - � �•- �� --- � '`` sem- C � �t �_ __ __ __ _ _ F I_ Fi 1 / ------------- r i L - ------- --------------------------------- i L PJI�rNC 3A1UC1rliE C T $ r FULL SERVIC= NF FBC APRON FLIGHT SCHOOL AUTO PARKING (52) FULL SERVICE NE FBO HANGARS FUGH- SCHOOLAPRON T44ANG46RS Sr -4461 -MED ENTRANCE FULL SERVICE SE FDD APRON FULL WM C1E W-rSE FRO AUTO PARVANG 16131- FULL SERVICE SE FBC HANGARS 'Sapplemer92: pa,WnF IaeiTist may be raqumtl ro aehi— oesvec capady. Lsgenc 1. Airport Buidn93 F$O Cpmrn::nily Hanca� _ _ ] FBC Apron lW150 SasM'TraasleW je Num Geraf AircrBFt AccornodatW - Airport Q.—p --Hangal — — _ -re n— Apron ---- A"r1 PrcWh Lm 8— Hangar Auto Parking Spume: AECOM 2019 Conceptual Facilities Layout - Alternative 1 Exhibit 3-4 John Wayne Airport General Aviation improvement Program x 500 250 D 500 1�'{+w Feet 18-14 TIE-I)OWNAPRON BOX "PMARS LTD SERVICE SW FSO AUTO PA FIG {SZ BOX H4J*,AR5 — ±361 BASED AIRCRAFr I-TOSERMEMIFEUKANaMIS AUTO PAAKW. 196) TIE4DC%M APRON OCSD BOX HAN03AR TIE4)OWNAPRON LTD SERVICE F80 (MARTIN)APRON C-7 2 11�- L L) Fq 40 - -------------- -------------- ......... ----------- - --- - ----------------------------- ----- - ------ ;C A- x ---------- -- --- --------------------------- PA� Sww"M C L Pat SERVICE ME FDO APRON FLIC-#FT SGHOOL AU -,U PARKING (52) FULL SERME NE FBU HANGARS FLIGHT SCHOOL APRON—T�IANCy3R5SrNAUZED ENTRANCE FULL SFWICF SE FBO APRON FULL SERVICE NESE FDO A.1-70 PARKM C413r FULL SFRvr-F SE FF30 HANGARS `Supp*rner"[ parking facilhas may be required bo ache,.* ceskx "padK. Legend On Apporl Ekwk*�p FI30CwwnuNtyHam_ W FDO Apron 251Y50 Gaw0Trans*Mj 40 Numt)erofAirrFaftArcomodated CM Aipnrt Suk*,p T --a- L Tie -0 n Apron Alport Properly Line Bax Kwpr i Auld ftMr@ Source: AEC Conceptual Facilities Layout - Alternative 2 Exhibit 5-1 John Wayne Airport General Aviation Improvement Program f, 500 250 0 5DID Af OR Feet 18-15 OCS4 BOX HANGARS �*rr� ry�+r��y TIE-EXYWNAPRON swarm STRUCM� ±554 BASED AIRCRAFT TIE-OOINNAPRON TIE -DOWN APRON -T-M bIAPRON LTU SERVICE FBb TIE -DOM APRON 0AAR-r N) APRON IL ........................ jr, — f_ -- --- -- -•--- -. -ia--- ---------------- -- .. _ — _ — — — _ — _ _ — — -- r - - -- -- --- - ------- Y bb t r Y _ PAM= SVRN:W e FULL SERVICE NE FBC HA14GAR HILL SERVICE SE FBQ APRON FULL SERVICE NE FOO AUTO PARKING (i54. R)LL SERVICE SE FRO AUTO PARKING Iatu) Rli SERVICE NE FB-- APRON '-I-IANCy4R5 FULL SERVICE BE FHO HAWAR T -HANGARS BOK HANGARS lit-0-CINNAPRON I T4 -MG RS Legend On Wrpm Buid'nrp — FBO Cwnrrt fity Hanger Off Airport BmMgS T+wWr -- _ Airpod Property Line Box Hangar Conceptual Facilities Layout - Alternative 3 John Wayne Airport General Aviation Improvement Program 504 250 0 Sao Feet _ _ :1 FBO Apron 451160 Based'Tranwodj 0 Nurnber or Alxcratt Aocomndated [ _ _ 7w -Down Apron — Shade Stnrbres Aada %*ug Source: kECQFWI 2018 Exhibit 5-3 18-16 ACI JET BOX HANGARS OCSO Box HANIGARS COUNTY TIE ZGWIIF A PRO N SHADED STRUCTURES ±5596 BASED AIRCRAFT COUNTY TIE-EICWNAPRON COUNTY TIE-DOWN APRON COUNTYTE-0OWNAPRON LTD SERVICE FBI COUNTY TIE-DOWN APRON (MARTW;APR.ON r V , E C13 FEE w f -------------------- - Tunwara ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------- -- --- -- - #--f=----- h ��t — D_WNiInE-DOWNRiJ�1P--------- - -----_- J - - - ----- tr~ ' _ 1 I r� J Ci ATLANTIC FEO (TRANSIENT} ACF JE' FEC HANGAR ATLANTIC FB4 APRON AGI JET FBOAUTO PARKING (164) AGI JET FBO APRON ATLAN7iC FBOALITO PARVJNG {210} ACI JET FEO T+WOGAR ATLANTIC FBD HANGARS EXECUTIVE T-IIANGARS EXECUTIVE TaiANIGpRS COUNTY TE4)ONYNAPROH SOUTH COAST HANGAR EXECUTIVE T-HANGARS Legend On Awpwt Buki V FM Cmmunrby Hangar [ _ _] FRO Aeon (56'56 Base&Tranw tF IS N.-- of Aircraft A000modated OR AkPolt Build" T-Hangar L — — TIC-Dmi Ramp Apron ---- Aiport Property Line ® Box Hangar ® Shade Structures Aulo �a kkv Conceptual Facilities Layout - No Project Alternative John WayneAirport General Aviation Improvement Program m x 5GO 250 0 500 Feet Source: AECOM 2018 ATTACHMENT D Alternatives TABLE 5-3 JWA FORECAST OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT ENGINE TYPE COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Year Piston Turbine jet Helicopter/Other Total Operationsa Existing Conditions 2016 1 147,300 9,800 31,800 3,900 192,800 Unconstrained Baseline Scenario 2026 1 147,100 12,000 43,600 5,100 207,800 Proposed Project 2026 111,000 11,700 40,400 4,800 167,900 Alternative 1 2026 111,600 10,800 41,400 4,800 168,600 Alternative 2 2026 114,700 10,000 39,900 4,800 169,400 Alternative 3 2026 147,000 9,500 36,400 4,700 197,600 No Project (Constrained Forecasts) 2026 147,000 10,900 38,300 4,800 201,000 Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding. An operation is defined as either a takeoff or landing, each counting as one operation. Source: AECOM 2018b (Appendix D to this Program EIR) The level of environmental impact and ability to meet Project Objectives is considered as part of the identification of the environmentally superior alternative, which is discussed in Section 5.5. Included in Section 5.5, Table 5-24 provides a brief comparison of the impacts of each of the alternatives, compared to the Proposed Project and Table 5-25 provides a matrix that compares each alternative's ability to meet the Project Objectives. 5.4.1 ALTERNATIVE 2 The concept of an alternative with the full service FBOs located on the east side of the Airport was developed as part of the outreach efforts conducted by Airport staff with the general aviation tenants and stakeholders to identify issues the general aviation community would like addressed and priorities for making improvements (see Section 2.4 for a discussion of the outreach effort). Alternative 2 proposes development of a Full Service Northeast FBO and a Full Service Southeast FBO. This alternative minimizes the extent that general aviation aircraft have to cross Runway 20R/2L to access the shorter general aviation runway (Runway 20L/2R). The total aircraft storage capacity for all the facilities included under this alternative is approximately 361 based aircraft. Alternative 2 accommodates seven more general aviation aircraft than the Proposed Project and five more aircraft than Alternative 1.1Table 5-4 provides a comparison of the type of 1 As shown in Table 5-1 compared to the Proposed Project and Alternative 1 the increase is entirely associated with an increase in the number spaces allocated for single-engine fixed -wing piston aircraft. It accommodates fewer fixed -wing turbine engine aircraft. JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT GENERAL AVIATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 5-9 PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 18-18 ATTACHMENT E REMY MOOSE t MANLEY LLP November 14, 2018 VIA ELECTRoNic & U.S. MAIL EIR627(a)ocair.com Lea Choum 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Andrea K. Leisy aleisy@rmmenvirolaw.com Re: General Aviation Improvement Program - Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2017031072) Dear Ms. Choum: We submit the following comments on behalf of our client, the City of Newport Beach (City) regarding the above referenced General Aviation Improvement Project (GAIP or Project) and related Draft. Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), including Alternative 1, which is analyzed at an equal level of detail. The City understands that, although certain'types of general aviation operations are anticipated to increase under the GAIP (private jets), no new significant adverse noise, air quality or traffic impacts were identified as a direct result of the Proposed Project or Alternative 1. (See DEIR, pp. 2-9, 4.2-19.) Overall, the proposed Project appears poised to significantly increase the number of private jet operations, which will impact the quality of life of the residents of the City. Prior to moving forward with the Project, we request that the County of Orange ("County") conduct additional analysis of these effects on City residents. I. Noise Analysis The aircraft related noise modeling in the DEIR reflects a new assumption that, by 2026, 40% of the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 aircraft utilizing the Airport will include the newer Boeing 737 -MAX and Airbus A320 -NEO with substantially quieter engines. This is different from the 2026 fleet mix assumptions used to prepare the 2014 Settlement Agreement Amendment EIR and influences the future plus project (and Alternative 1) cumulative noise modeling. In support of the assumption, the DEIR includes two website links to current commercial orders placed with Boeing and Airbus. The order summaries appear to be nationwide and therefore not specific to California or the carriers at the Airport. (See DEIR, p. 4-7; App. H, pp. 67, 87, fns. 4, 5; see also DEIR, p. 4.6-48, fn. 15.) As set forth in the DEIR, it is unclear whether, and how, the carriers at the Airport will be ensured to acquire and use the newer engine aircrafts, at the Airport, within the next 8 SSS Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Sacramento CA 95814 1 Phone: (916) 443-2745 I Fax: (916) 443-9017 1 www.rmmenvirolaw.com 18-19 Ms. Choum November 14, 2018 Page 2 years to realize the 40% assumption. This assumption appears overly optimistic, which will result in the DEIR understating the overall noise impacts in the 2026 cumulative scenario and, possibly, noise related to future general aviation operations. Overall, these assumptions are not properly explained, are unsupportable and understate the potential impacts of the Project. Hence, we request a more thorough analysis of these issues and the impacts associated with a different fleet mix. II. Flight Patterns The DEIR states that there will not be a change in existing flight patterns (DEIR, p. 4-6; App. H, pp. 68, 87), but does not set forth the current flight patterns, which are the basis for much of the analysis in the DEIR. Also, it is unclear that the assumption there will not be a change in existing flight patterns is true for both commercial and general aviation aircraft. The City requests that the County explain in detail the flight patterns being flown by private jets and the basis for the assumption that business jets and other general aviation aircraft will also be directed to continue using existing flight patterns. Please also clarify the general aviation flight pattern assumptions used for the proposed Project and Alternative 1 scenarios, and the baseline information regarding general aviation flight patterns that the EIR consultants relied on. While there is some general discussion about general aviation planes turning sooner than commercial aircraft while over the Upper Newport Bay, there is not much discussion in the DEIR about existing GA flight patterns. Also, please identify whether the SoCal Metroplex project has impacted the flight patterns for GA aircraft and, if so, how. In addition, the City understands that the same existing runway would be used for general aviation operations (Runway 20L) under the proposed Project and Alternative 1; however, it is unclear if flight patterns would change, or not, due to the increased number of Full Service and Limited Service Fixed Based Operations (FBOs) or the General Aviation Facility, depending on where theyy are located within the Airport. (See Exhibit 3- 1 [proposed Project includes two Full Service FBOs on the west and east sides of the Airport and one Limited Service FBO]; see also Exhibit 3-4 [Alternative 1 includes three Full Service FBOs (on the west, northeast and southeast) and one Limited Service FBO; the western FBO (off Airway Ave) would be new (as opposed to the existing FBOs).] Additional clarification on this point is essential to understanding the potential impacts associate with the Project. III. Sensitive Receptors The DEIR explains that the changes in the size of the noise contours as a result of Proposed Project and Alternative 1 is "nominal." Increasing, for example, the total contour area between 65 and 70 CNEL by 0.01 square mile (.6%), and the area 18-20 Ms. Choum November 14, 2018 Page 3 exceeding 70 CNEL by .O1 square mile (7%) over Baseline 2016 conditions. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-21, -45, 7.7-28.) However, the DEIR does not adequately disclose the precise changes associated with this impact. To be adequate, the DEIR should disclose the addresses or streets and intersections as well as the specific locations where the noise contours are expected to change due to the proposed Project. Also, the DEIR states that no additional schools, hospitals, or places of worship would be included within the 65 CNEL or greater contour. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-22, -45.) This conclusion appears to be inconsistent with the Technical Noise Analysis in Appendix H, p. 77 (Table .19), however, which identifies one additional school and two additional places of worship within the 65-70 CNEL contours for the Future (2026) Proposed Project and Alternative 1 scenarios. Please clarify and identify where, if any, the new sensitive receptors (one additional school and two additional places of worship) are located, assuming Table 19 of the appendix is correct. IV. Health Risk Analysis The DEIR includes a detailed discussion of the health risk assessment (HRA) prepared for the Settlement Agreement EIR (EIR 617), a different project, and compares the emissions anticipated to occur under the proposed Settlement Agreement Amendment to the GAIP Proposed Project and Alternative 1. The HRA prepared for the Settlement Agreement Amendment (EIR 617), however, did not anticipate the different GAIP emissions anticipated under the Proposed Project and Alternative 1, including increased emissions from the increased number of GA jet aircraft. Under CEQA, rather than compare the relatively small amount of emissions anticipated to occur under the GAIP Proposed Project/Alternative 1 to the amount of emissions anticipated in EIR 617 for increased commercial carrier operations, the DEIR should have identified the agency approved methodologies for considering the potential health risks of a project, and considered whether the additional amount of emissions anticipated to occur under the GAIP Proposed Project and Alternative 1 would cause a direct or cumulatively considerable potential health risk. Although there is a forecasted decrease in GA piston -powered aircraft assumed in the DEIR, there is also an assumed increase in turbine engine and jet aircraft operations, particularly over time, which must be considered as "additive" to the SA Amendment operations and other foreseeable related projects. Not, as the DEIR does, engage in a "de minimis" type comparison. (See Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 120.) This is especially important when, as recognized by the DEIR; the existing levels of TAC -related cancer causing emissions in the air basin are already cumulatively considerable and significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-31 [discussing the 2015 MATES -IV Report released by SCAQMD]; see Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692.) 18-21 Ms. Choum November 14, 2018 Page 4 Also, as identified by KB Environmental Sciences, Inc., EIR 627 appears not to: (i) address the significant impact found to on-site airport workers in EIR 617; or (ii) consider the dispersion of GA aircraft emissions and the potential effects from such emissions to sensitive receptors. (See Attachment A [Peer Review by Mr. Kenney, KB Environmental Sciences, Inc.] .) The HRA prepared for EIR 617, for example, estimates that on-site airport workers could experience an increased incidence of non -cancer effects under the short- term exposures. By comparison, EIR 627 seems to conclude that non -cancer risks to airport workers are not expected. The HRA prepared for EIR 617 also did not include dispersion modeling of GA aircraft emissions, much less GA emissions as contemplated under the GAIP Project or Alternative 1. Please provide substantial evidence supporting the findings and conclusions in the EIR 617 on these issues. Lastly, EIR 627 appears to assume that the most intensive activities will occur in the southwestern -most area of the Airport. The analysis of health risks does not consider the variances in distances and directions between the new proposed sources of emissions (GA jet aircraft and cars) to the sensitive residential receptors in that area. Please clarify. V. Haul Routes The DEIR does not consider what haul routes would be used during construction of the GAIP, although a substantial number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are identified. (DEIR, p. 6-7, Tables 6-2 and 6-3.) Although the DEIR is a programmatic document in nature, the proposed Project and Alternative 1 identify where the Full Service and Limited Service FBOs will be located. The document should therefore include an analysis of the haul routes likely to be used for demolition, excavation, construction and/or expansion of GAIP facilities throughout the various construction phases of the Project (or Alternative 1). Please also clarify if any routes would travel through the City of Newport Beach. VI. Fuel Types Lastly, the City has heard from several constituents that there is a desire, on behalf of the smaller general aviation community, for the County to offer lead free/lead reduced/ alternative fuel as a part of the Project to reduce or eliminate lead emissions. 18-22 Ms. Choum November 14, 2018 Page 5 Thank you in advance for your consideration of the City's comments. Please provide me with a copy of all public notices issued in connection with the Project, including the Notice of Availability of the Final EIR. Please also contact me if you have any questions. Very truly ours, f Andrea K. Leisy Encl. Cc: Aaron Harp 18-23 ATTACHMENT A 18-24 John Wayne Airport Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Health Risk Assessment (HRA): Peer Review Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Prepared by: KB Environmental Sciences, Inc. November 12, 2018 18-25 Executive Summary A Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 627) has been prepared for the proposed General Aviation (GA) Improvement Program (GAIP) at John Wayne Airport (JWA or "the Airport"). Previously, a separate EIR (EIR 617) was also prepared and certified, in 2014, for purposes of amending the Settlement Agreement governing commercial operations at JWA, referred to as the "Settlement Agreement (SA) Amendment EIR". The objective of this Peer Review is to determine whether or not the reliance on the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared and adopted for the SA 617 EIR is appropriate for the GAIP EIR 627 analysis. The HRA prepared for the SA Amendment (EIR 617) was conducted in accordance with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines and consistent with guidance documents issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Environmental Protection Agency ("CalEP). The principal aim is to estimate the potential changes in human cancer and non -cancer risks attributable to exposures of Toxic Air Contaminates (TAC) associated with proposed projects. The outcomes of the respective analyses in the EIRs are summarized as follows: ■ EIR 617 HRA: The HRA for EIR 617 concludes that there will be no significant increase in the incidence of cancer and long- or short-term non -cancer effects for all receptors in the vicinity of the airport including nearby residential communities, sensitive land uses and areas on the airport where the general public and airport workers have access. However, it is estimated that on -airport workers could experience an increased incidence of non -cancer effects under short-term exposures to TACs. ■ EIR 627: EIR 627 concludes that the emissions from the GAIP are less than the EIR 617 project, so it assumes that the health impacts are also less. From this it is concluded that the GAIP would not cause any significant risk to human health among those that work at the Airport or reside nearby (including any "sensitive receptors"). Based upon the findings of this Peer Review, the following observations are considered "Key" in terms of determining whether or not the application of the HRA for the 617 EIR is appropriate for.EIR 627. The underlined information signifies the "bottom-line" conclusions and recommendations. ■ General Aviation (GA) Aircraft: The EIR 617 air emissions inventory includes emissions from GA aircraft but the dispersion modeling does not. This is because GA operations do not change under the EIR 617. Therefore, the EIR 617 HRA did not involve GA operations. Clarification and further justification for this approach should be provided. ■ Aircraft Fleet Mix & Flight Paths: Although not reported in EIR 627, the assumed reduction in propeller -driven GA aircraft operations and increased turbo -prop and jet operations seems to be assuming that there will be a lesser amount of TACs under EIR 627. Also the flight paths are not clearly defined which could result in a concentration of emissions. These findings should be substantiated as reported upon in the EIR 627. ■ Health Risk Assessment: There was no HRA conducted for EIR 627 and the health risks are extrapolated from the EIR 617 HRA. The permissibility of applying the EIR 617 HRA to EIR 627 18-26 under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) should be reconsidered because the use of the HRA in this way may not be appropriate due to the different nature of the projects. ■ Health Risks: In contrast to the Significant Non -Cancer Health Risks estimated for on -airport workers for the EIR 617 HRA, it is unclear and unsubstantiated why these same risks to airport workers are Less -than -Significant under EIR 627. This conclusion needs to be explained and justified. Based on these findings of this Peer Review, the underlined recommendations calling for clarifications and additional are considered necessary before fully determining whether or not the results from the EIR 617 HRA are applicable to EIR 627. 18-27 Table of Contents I. Introduction & Objective............................................................................................................................1 II. EIR 627 HRA Approach..............................................................................................................................1 III. HRA Methodologies, Terms & Assumptions....................................................................................................2 IV. Summary of 617 & 627 Results..........................................................................................................................3 V. Peer Review..........................................................................................................................................................4 VI. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................5 References& Reviewer Qualifications...................................................................................................................7 18-28 I. Introduction & Objective ADraft Program Environmental Impact Report (referred to as DPEIR 627 or the "GA Project EIR") has been prepared for the proposed John Wayne Airport (JWA or "the Airport") General Aviation (GA) Improvement Program (GAIP).1 The GAIP comprises a series of projects planned for the airport's GA facilities (e.g., aprons, hangars and other buildings) and the expected decrease in GA piston -powered aircraft and increase in turbo -powered and jet aircraft. Previously, a separate EIR (EIR 617) was also prepared forJWA and is referred to as the "Settlement Agreement (SA) Amendment EIR" .2 The SA EIR addressed the expected increase in passengers and commercial aircraft operations at the Airport. Prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), both the GA and the SA EIRs evaluated the potential impacts (or risks) to human health. Conducted in the form of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA), the analyses prepared for EIR 617 focused on the effects of the increase in commercial flights proposed as part of the SA Amendment on nearby communities, particularly "sensitive" land -uses and airport workers. In comparison, the analysis of health risk impacts for the GA EIR (EIR 627) was based on a comparison to the SA HRA (EIR 617). The objective of this Peer Review is to determine whether or not the application of the HRA for the SA EIR is appropriate for EIR 627. In other words, "can the findings from the SA HRA also be used to evaluate the health risks of the GAIP"? This review was accomplished by assessing the methodology, assumptions and outcomes of the SA HRA in conjunction with comparisons to the GAIP in terms of the generation of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC). Notably, this evaluation was based on information and data contained in the GA and SA EIRs and no additional HRA or other technical analyses were performed. II. EIR 627 Approach As discussed above, the approach taken in the GAIP EIR was to use the SA HRA as a "screening mechanism." In particular, the TAC emissions' associated with the SA project were compared with those of the GAIP. Insofar as the emissions from the GAIP are less than the SA project, EIR 627 estimated that the health impacts are also less. From this it is concluded that the GAIP would not cause any significant risk to human health among those that work at the Airport or reside nearby (including any "sensitive receptors"). III. EIR Projects & Actions Briefly described, the projects and actions planned for JWA and evaluated in EIRs 617 and 627 are as follows: ■ General Aviation Improvement Program (EIR 627): An assortment of facilities and other improvements (e.g., Fixed Based Operator (s) and GATerminal; airplane hangars, aprons and fuel systems; on-site roadways and vehicle parking lots) under differing development alternatives. 1 John Wayne Airport General Aviation Improvement Program (GAIP) - Draft Program Environmental Impact Report 627, prepared for the County of Orange, September 2018. 2 U.S. District Court, Central District of California, County of Orange vs. Air California vs. City of Newport Beach vs. County of Orange County Board of Supervisors. Oct. 15, 2014. 3 The majority of TACs are fractional components of Volatile Organic Compounds - VOCs (also known as Hazardous Air Pollutants — HAPs) and particulate matter (PM). Therefore, it is generally assumed VOCs and PM serve as a corresponding measure of TACs. 18-29 These projects are planned in conjunction with the forecasted decrease in GA piston -powered aircraft and increase turbine engine and jet aircraft operations. Settlement Agreement (SA) Amendment (EIR 617): The forecasted increase in passengers and commercial air -carrier operations through 2026. The project did not propose any improvements to the Airport. Full descriptions for the GAIP and SA projects are provided in the individual EIRs, including (but not limited to) the analysis years, airport activity levels, the Preferred Project and alternatives evaluated and impact mitigation measures. Complete copies of the 2014 HRA is also included in EIR 617. IV. HRA Methodologies, Terms & Assumptions The SA HRA' was conducted in accordance with the California Air Resources Board (CARE) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines' and consistent with guidance documents issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Environmental Protection Agency ("CalEP). The principal aim of the analysis is to estimate the potential changes in human cancer and non -cancer risks attributable to exposures of TACassociated with the proposed action. Several HRA -related terms and concepts considered relevant to this Peer Review are described as follows (listed in alphabetical order): Common Terms & Concepts ■ Air Quality Models: The Emissions Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) developed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was used for the SA EIR air quality analysis and the new Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) was used for the GA EIR. ■ Exposure Conditions: For residents and other sensitive receptors - continuous exposure for 24 hours/day, 350 days/year and over a 70 -year lifetime. For on-site workers - exposures of 8 hours/day, 245 working days/year over a 40 -year working lifetime. In both cases, these risk criteria represent "worst-case" conditions.' ■ Risk Assessment (HRA): An evaluation of the change(s) in the incidences on cancer and non - cancer due to long- or short-term exposures to environmental contaminants. Effects and conditions that could contribute to increased health risks but are not accounted for in the HRA (e.g., pre-existing health conditions, non -airport sources of emissions). ■ Significance Thresholds: Numerical thresholds above which cancer and non -cancer risks are considered significant: - Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk>_ 10 in 1 million, - Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas >_ 1 in 1 million), and - Non -Carcinogenic (Chronic/Acute) Hazard index >_ 1.0.' 4 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment -Air Quality Technical Report, prepared for Orange County, April 2014. s Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Technical Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis, California Air Resources Board, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). e "Worst-case" conditions represent time -periods, pollutant concentrations, toxicity characteristics, meteorology and other factors that are considered extreme and occur simultaneously. While possible, these circumstances are highly unlikely. ' Non -carcinogenic impacts are those to the respiratory system including inflammation and bronchial irritation, impacts to the nervous system, immune system, reproductive system, the kidneys, and the eyes. 18-30 ■ Sensitive Receptors: The places that could be affected by emissions associated with the Airport included residential communities; schools, day care centers, nursing homes and hospitals; and parks and athletic facilities located up to 1,000 meters (0.6 miles) away. ■ Sources of Emissions: Air emissions included commercial and GA aircraft, auxiliary power units (APUs), ground support equipment (GSE) and on-site motor vehicles. For the EIR 617 HRA, the focus was on TACs from commercial aircraft. ■ Toxic Air Contaminates (TAC): The vast majority of TACs (also referred to as Chemicals of Potential Concern - CPOC) are hydrocarbon -based compounds (e.g., formaldehyde benzene, naphthalene) and particulate matter (PM).8 Notably lead (Pb), a component of leaded avgas, is not included among TACs analyzed in a HRA.9 Important Assumptions There are also a number of assumptions pertaining to the SA and GA EIRs that are considered important to this Peer Review. These, and the reasons for their importance, are briefly stated below: ■ Aircraft Operations & Fleet Mix: The EIR analyses are based in large part on current and future - year estimates of airport and project -related activity levels reported in the EIRs 617 and 627. The types of aircraft using the Airport (e.g., B737, Cessna 160, etc.), and aircraft activity levels under the two projects affect the amounts of TACs produced. Also, the flight paths which are not disclosed, impact the concentration of emissions. ■ Concurrent Projects & Actions: It is assumed that the planned SA and GA projects are both implemented on schedule and the emissions are additive. Again, aircraft activity levels and aircraft types affect the amounts of TACs produced. ■ HRA Methodology: For accuracy, consistency and acceptability an HRA is conducted following established guidelines from local, state and federal agencies (see above). Variances and exclusions can result in different outcomes. ■ HRA Applicability: A HRA was not prepared for EIR 627 and rather relies upon the EIR 617 HRA results. EIR 627 therefore assumes that the EIR 617 HRA results are applicable. Most notably, this Peer Review analyzes the HRA for EIR 617 relied on in EIR 627 because that is the only analysis available. V. Summary of HRA Results As discussed above, the primary objective of this Peer Review is aimed at evaluating the appropriateness of applying the results from the SA HRA to the GAIP. For brevity and comparative purposes, the outcomes of the two assessments are summarized as follows: ■ EIR 617 HRA: The results of the HRA predicted that health risks associated with the SA project are: 8 Particulate matter is segregated by two particle sizes: PM10 are less than 10 microns in diameter and PMz.s are less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Ultrafine particles (UFP) are less than 0.1 microns but are not included in Health Risk Assessments. g Lead is among the six pollutants for which there are National (NAAQS) and California (CAAQS) Ambient Air Quality Standards (others include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and ozone (03). 18-31 Cancer & Cancer Burden: Less than significant risks for all receptors including nearby residential communities, sensitive land uses and areas on the Airport where the general public and airport workers have access; Chronic Non -Cancer: Less than significant risk for all receptors described above. Acute Non -Cancer: Significant risk impact for on-site airport workers. In other words, EIR 627 does not expect there will be additional risks of cancer and long- or short- term health effects attributable to the project. However, it is estimated that on-site airport workers could experience an increased incidence of non -cancer effects under short-term exposures to TACs. ■ EIR 627: From this analyses it was determined that HC and PM emissions (and therefore TACs) for the GAIP10 would be less than estimated for SA EIR 617. From this, it was concluded that a small increment of emissions would not cause an exceedance of the Significance Thresholds for cancer and non -cancer health impacts. In short, EIR 627 does not expect there will be any significant increase in occurrence of cancer and non -cancer impacts in either the short- or long -terms because of the GAIP project. Again, it is important to note that the objective of this Peer Review is to determine of the outcomes from EIR 617 are also appropriate for EIR 627. VI. Peer Review Findings & Conclusion This section presents the overall findings and conclusions for this Peer Review. ■ Findings: The essential findings of this Peer Review are as follows (arranged in approximate order of importance): - Non -cancer Health Risks: For EIR 617 it is not expected there will be additional risks of cancer and long- or short-term health effects attributable to the project. But it is estimated that on - airport workers could experience an increased incidence of non -cancer effects under the short-term exposures. By comparison, for EIR 627 it is reported that airport worker non -cancer risks are not expected. Importantly to this Peer Review, it is not clear how this finding is derived or substantiated. - Project Modeling Orientations: The EIR 617 project involves additional commercial flights mainly oriented around the Airport main terminal and primary runway. By comparison, the EIR 627 projects are mostly located in the southwestern -most area of the Airport. The variances in distances and directions between the sources of emissions and the sensitive receptors can have an effect on the transport and fate of TACs. In this case, the effects of orientation are unsubstantiated. - Lead: Lead is among the six pollutants for which there are NAAQS/CAAQS and therefore it is not listed as a TAC. Leaded avgas for some GA aircraft is one of the last remaining sources of this pollutant. However, lead -containing avgas will be phased -out by 2020 and replaced with alternative fuels. In addition, the U.S. EPA has identified airports with lead emissions greater that 0.5 tons annually for in-depth study and JWA is not among them. Lead emissions were not included in either the 617 or 628 EIR analyses. 11 For this Peer Review it is assumed that the GAIP includes the Proposed Project and Alternative 1. 18-32 ■ Conclusions: Based upon the findings of this Peer Review, the following observations are considered "Key" in terms of determining whether or not the application of the HRA for the 617 EIR is appropriate for EIR 627. The underlined information signifies the "bottom-line" conclusions and recommendations. - General Aviation (GA) Aircraft: The EIR 617 air emissions inventory includes emissions from GA aircraft but the dispersion modeling does not. This is because GA operations do not change under the EIR 617. Therefore, the EIR 617 HRA did not involve GA operations. Clarification and further iustification for this approach should be provided. - Aircraft Fleet Mix & Flight Patterns: Although not reported in EIR 627, the reduction in propeller -driven GA aircraft operations and increased turbo -prop and jet operations seems to assume that there will be a lesser amount of TACs under the GAIP project. Also, the flight paths are not clearly identified (existing + future) which could result in concentrating emissions. These findings should be substantiated and reported upon in the EIR 627. - Health Risk Assessment: There was no HRA conducted for EIR 627 and the health risks are extrapolated from the EIR 617 HRA. The appropriateness of applying the EIR 617 HRA to EIR 627 under CEQA should be re-evaluated because the projects are different and the use of the EIR 617 HRA may not be appropriate. - Health Risks: In contrast to the Significant Non -Cancer Health Risks estimated for on -airport workers for the EIR 617 HRA, it is unclear and unsubstantiated why these same risks to airport workers are Less -than -Significant under EIR 627. This conclusion needs to be explained and justified. From this Peer Review, the underlined recommendations calling for clarifications and additional are considered necessary before fully determining whether or not the results from the EIR 617 HRA are applicable to EIR 627. [End of Report] 18-33 References Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Technical Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis, California Air Resources Board, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) John Wayne Airport General Aviation Improvement Program (GAIP) - Draft Program Environmental Impact Report 627, prepared for the County of Orange, September 2018. John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment - Air Quality Technical Report, prepared for Orange County, April 2014. U.S. District Court, Central District of California., County of Orange vs. Air California vs. City of Newport Beach vs. County of Orange County Board of Supervisors. Oct. 15, 2014. Reviewer Qualifications Mr. Kenney is Vice President of KB Environmental Sciences, Inc. and provides project management as well as "hands-on" technical involvement for a wide variety of air quality assessments for airports, the aviation industry and governmental agencies throughout California, across the U.S. and around the world. His specialized expertise and experience includes air quality measurements, air emissions inventories, dispersion modeling, as well as hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Mike has considerable experience providing technical services in support of NEPA and CEQA documents. He is also trained in the areas of human health and environmental toxicology. 18-34 Michael A. Kenney 4(ft�o Environmental Sciences Senior Air Quality Specialist Mr. Kenney is Vice President of KB Environmental Sciences, Inc. and provides project management as well as "hands-on" technical involvement for a wide variety of air quality assessments for airports, the aviation industry and governmental agencies throughout California, across the U.S. and around the world. His specialized expertise and experience includes air quality measurements, air emissions inventories, dispersion modeling, as well as hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Mike has considerable experience providing technical services in support of NEPA and CEQA documents. He is also trained in the areas of human health and environmental toxicology. Expertise Air quality assessments for airports, marine ports and roadways; industrial hygiene, human health risks and worker exposure evaluations; and hazardous materials surveys. Years of Experience A total of 39 years consulting 15 years with KBE 25 years with other private consulting firms and government regulatory agency Education BA, 1976, Environmental Science, University of Maine MS, 1979, Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida Post Graduate Studies, 1987-1993, Industrial Hygiene and Environmental Health, University of South Florida Certifications/Professional Affiliations Certified Hazardous Materials Manager,1994, CHMM No. 5503 Qualified Environmental Professional, 1995, QEP No. 06930024 Certified Industrial Hygienist, 2003, CIH No. 8719 Competent Toastmaster, 1988 Representative Projects & Services Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Air Quality Assessment Services, Los Angeles, California Involved in a wide array of ongoing air quality impact assessments at LAX including the development and assessment of air quality mitigation measures, and consistency with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). San Diego International Airport (SAN) Air Quality Assessment Services, San Diego, California Involved in the preparation of a series of products and services that enabled the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) to advance their "award-winning" Environmental Management Program. These initiatives include the SAN Master Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) l Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Air Quality Assessment and the SAN Air Quality Management Plan comprised of emissions inventories, mitigation strategies, and stakeholder coordination. Houston Airport System (HAS) Emission Inventory, Houston, Texas Working with the FAA, HAS, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as well as Southwest and Continental Airlines, this initiative was designed to ensure that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Houston- Galveston-Brazoria non -attainment area contains accurate and up-to-date emissions for George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH). Involved extensive data collection, preparation of emissions inventories. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Air Quality Assessment Services, San Francisco, California Compiled a comprehensive construction emissions inventory related to airport improvements at SFO. Part of this work included assessments with OFFROAD, EMFAC and CARB's - Off-road Emissions Inventory. (OEI) database. Air quality impact analysis was performed to satisfy both NEPA and CEQA requirements. Boston -Logan International Airport Air Quality Services Project Manager for a wide array of services including air quality studies, emission reduction measures, GHG assessments, human health risk evaluations, public and agency coordination. 18-35 ATTACHMENT F Feb'. 20, 2019 To: Grace Leung, Newport Beach City Manager Council Members, City of Newport Beach The Airport Working Group of Orange County and SPON/AirFair, two established community groups of Newport Beach, have worked diligently for decades on behalf of the citizens to protect our way of life against obtrusive noise and pollution to homes, schools and people of all ages, from programs at John Wayne Airport. Specifically, we have unanimously opposed any unilateral changes to the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement (as co-signers with the City and County). Further, as an underlying framework to manage negative consequences of any proposed airport programs, both the City of Newport Beach and these community groups have historically & publicly agreed to.oppose: • Any expansion of John Wayne Airport ("JWA") beyond its current physical footprint; • A second commercial runway or the extension of the existing runway; • Any significant reduction in general aviation operations /facilities, which could allow for more commercial aircraft use; and • Any detrimental change to air carrier or g6neral aviation noise ordinances The release of the General Aviation Improvement Program Draft Program EIR 627 ("DPEIR') by the County of Orange has directly challenged these guiding principles in a major way. The program study involves the County of Orange initiating major operational infrastructure capital projects at JWA under a program umbrella to accommodate an increased number of large GA turbo jet aircraft in new GA terminal(s). Although there were five alternatives listed in the DPEIR (including "No Project"), only the "Proposed Project" and "Alternative 1" were studied in any depth showing bias toward one of these options. Our community groups — the aforementioned Airport Working Group and SPON/AirFair- have issues with, and oppose the Proposed Project -and the Alternatives 1 & 2. This opposition is based on the negative impact resulting from major additive construction of facilities to primarily support incremental turbo jet operations. Of the alternatives identified in the DFEIR, Alternative 3 is the one we support due to its minimum impact. Key reasons for supporting this position are described below. GA Based Aircraft Capacity Issues The existing general aviation capacity at JWA is 596 aircraft of a broad mix in size. The Proposed Project and Alternative 1 reduce this capacity by 240+ aircraft, a 40% decrease - a direct contradiction to the guiding principles of Newport Beach and the community. The small aircraft owners (non- jet) are the ones being removed from premises if the Proposed project or Alternative 1 were to be approved, and would be replaced by nosier, more polluting jet powered aircraft. Alternative 2, although a smaller physical footprint, still reduces GA aircraft storage capacity by more than 200 aircraft. 18-36 Community Letter Re: GAIP DPEIR Alternative 3 Recommendation- Feb. 20, 2019 The community acknowledges that there are some FAA safety,. compliance issues currently at JWA that must be corrected, which will eliminate a smaller number of tie -down positions (less than 100). The "No Project Alternative", which does not address the mandatory FAA corrections required, is not a preferred option as it is not a defensible long term solution, 4 For optimal capacity usage Alternative 3, which maintains much of the current GA infrastructure footprint for many current based aircraft, and provides for the FAA required safety improvements, has many advantages over the other alternatives. Environmental and Noise Issues Although the DPEIR Summary identified no significant environmental impact for the Proposed Project and Alternative f under CEQA Guidelines, the community groups unanimously disagree with this finding as stated in our written comments submitted during the comment period. These include: Inaccurately, minimizing the future commercial aircraft noise and pollutant emissions as part of the overall pollution and noise cumulative impact forecast with the new GA aircraft mix. This was due to the use of an overly aggressive and unsubstantiated forecast of cleaner, quieter next generation Boeing MAX and Airbus NEO aircraft replacing the current fleets operating'at JWA in a short horizon time frame. There is ample evidence that this will not be the case for JWA due to passenger market information and limitations on the carriers. The current Boeing 738 MAX aircraft have a significantly higher passenger capacity, and with carriers at the max MAP today, using larger aircraft would require a reduction in daily departures to not exceed their allocations... this will not happen which means the DPEIR projections are incorrect and the higher corporate jet, charters, and business aircraft departures will be entirely additive in noise and pollution to the community. Disregarding the increased noise impact oirthe same neighborhoods and schools currently impacted by the commercial departure paths, by the incremental noise of larger business and corporate turbo jets. The significant increase in these larger aircraft under the Proposed Project and Alternative 1 offset the displaced small GA aircraft which do not follow the FAA commercial departure tracks, but the turbo jets do. Hence the same neighborhoods would directly bear the negative impacts. The negative impact of a likely significant increase in large charter operators operating in the FBO facilities. These operators are already causing issues locally, and if classified as "unscheduled" under the Settlement Agreement, can operate in a less restrictive manner as to noise and night curfews, detrimental to Newport Beach residents' quality of life. There would be no restrictions to control this. Much greater volume of itinerant (non -based) aircraft using John Wayne Airport due to the proposed increase in ground services in security, customs and immigration. This capability would make JWA very attractive as both a departure and arrival origin / destination airport for international GA operations. This would substantially 18-37 Community Letter Re: GAIP DPEIR Alternative 3 Recommendation- Feb. 20, 2019 Security Issues The Proposed Project and Alternative 1, the primary program options studied in the most depth in the DPEIR, and Alternative 2, include provisions for an international General Aviation Facility (GAF). In the opinion of the community groups, the GAF as defined in the DPEIR would create significant security risks by having passenger boarding and de -planning screening in a much less secure environment than that required by federal regulations for "commercial" passengers in Terminals A -C. There is no reason to not expect this to be a known weak spot in security for anyone with criminal intentions, and this is an unacceptable solution. For non -international flights of private jet operations, there are passenger screening requirements of the FAA / TSA, but there is not a requirement that security be managed by TSA, and private security firms will not. have the same protocols and discipline as TSA itself. There are a number of media reports of extreme cases of security laxity at other U. S. airports whereby passenger actions created major concerns and risked tragedy. Newport Beach residents, being directly under the departure path for a majority of private turbo jet aircraft are put at unacceptable risk with the planned GAF under those three alternatives. Conclusion- Community Supported GAIP Alternative After detailed study of all the alternatives put forward in the GAIP DPEIR 627 document by the signees of this letter, Alternative 3 is the only one that we can collectively support. Consistent with the guiding principles listed at the beginning of this letter, our goal is to keep the total number of hangars and tie downs for GA aircraft at JWA as close as possible to the same level as today (129 hangars and 368 tie downs). This alternative is closest to that goal, and, yields an appropriate control against commercial airline operations growth, yet allows the necessary updates to the airport to meet FAA safety standards. Possible enhancements for Alternative 3 favorable to small aircraft owners With an appropriate analysis and study by the County, there may be enhancements available to Alternative 3 to increase support for that option -from the GA private owner community. These may include improvements to the existing "limited service FBO's" by innovations in use of current space for vehicle parking and hangar utilization. By our signature below, we request the City of Newport Beach align with us on publicly supporting Alternative 3 of the DPEIR 627. If appropriate, we are willing to meet with City of Newport Beach representatives (and the County) to confirm alignment and common strategies going forward. Sincerely AWG -,.L.S'PON/AirFair 3 18-38